Church planting Churches… The first time I heard this phrase was about a decade ago. I was a member of a small Baptist church with limited resources, and I had a difficult time understanding how our tiny congregation could be involved in planting other churches. We were making monthly contributions (albeit small) to the Southern Baptist Convention’s Cooperative Program. Maybe this qualified us to be a church planting church, but I suspected there was more to it than that.

It was around this time that Dee and I began to research trends in Christendom. We soon learned about a pastor named Mark Driscoll and a church-planting organization called Acts 29 (co-founded by Driscoll). In order to be associated with it, a church in the Southeastern United States, for example, agrees to the following… (see screen shot below)

***********

************

As I understand it, these financial commitments are in addition to any denominational commitments.

The Acts 29 Network has been around for twenty years now, and we aren’t the least bit surprised that copycat organizations are starting to spring up. One such copycat is the Advance Movement, which was started by P.J. Smyth just four years ago. (see his bio)

Take a look at what is expected of churches that partner with Advance (see screen shot below):

Notice how the financial expectations of partnering churches are very similar to those of Acts 29.

Advance has a global team which is comprised of pastors including PJ Smyth (see screen shot below). How in the world does Smyth and other members of the team have time to shepherd their own congregations? Are church members at Covenant Life Church going to be O.K. with their lead pastor devoting so much attention to the church planting network he established?

I remember reading testimonies of Covenant Life Church members who made great financial sacrifices to contribute to the building campaigns. Remember how C.J. Mahaney asked the congregants to dig deeper into their pockets to fund the multi-million dollar gymnasium (after forking over their $$$ for the huge CLC facility)? Some families made tremendous financial sacrifices to appease their pastors.

After current CLC members re-commit to their church by March 11, Smyth will soon be demanding the congregation support his church planting network, as detailed above. Is this really what the Book of Acts has in mind?

In case you’re wondering how Advance does church planting, here are some FAQ’s. (see screen shot below)

We have so many questions regarding the Advance Movement and the congregations that will be making contributions to this church planting organization. Here are some of them.

What are your thoughts on all this talk of church planting?

Are congregations being harmed by this over-emphasis on church planting?

Is it possible for a pastor to shepherd his flock while promoting church-planting?

Who pays for the trips to global and regional Advance gatherings (the pastor or the church)?

Does promoting this global church-planting network take away from the local missions efforts of churches?

No doubt you have your own questions and concerns, so feel free to share them here.

By their own admission, they had a huge portion of funds dedicated to “strengthening”. Don’t know how much will be left over fo giving to the poor after that as well as keeping the shiny edifices running.

And — repeatedly — with PERSECUTION. Persecutuons followed by growth/forward movement etc. is repeated over and over and over in Acts. If they’re going to claim to go by the book, where’s that manifesting?

“As I understand it, these financial commitments are in addition to any denominational commitments.”

But of course, they offer the “benefits” of a denomination with a reduced rate compared to some other denominational cuts. In those cases, they appear to offer buying in low (comparatively in some circles) with their nascent quasi-denomination. Standing invitations for,authority and discipline too! All for a low, low percentage…

“Are congregations being harmed by this over-emphasis on church planting?”

Any that aren’t properly balanced could be. I think of the flight attendants who tell passengers not to put oxygen masks on a child first (which is often the natural instinct) but to put it on themselves so they can then help others. This is also reflected to a degree in Paul’s admonition to not neglect one’s own family in true need. Thus, you need sober actors looking prayerfully into the church priorities. If you’ve got authority-heavy echo chambers made up of humans, said priorities may get skewed.

“Is it possible for a pastor to shepherd his flock while promoting church-planting?”

It’s not something that is likely to happen without prioritizing it. (Of course, this is the age of the “teaching pastor”, so shepherding may not be on the individual to-do list.) If it is a priority, it would be wise to identify, interested, engaged, and AVAILABLE church attendees who are willing to make a commitment to participate in discipleship activities commensurate with church planting.

“Does promoting this global church-planting network take away from the local missions efforts of churches?”

This particular one? There are enough red flags to me to have a May Day parade, so…

Unable to get in to work today, but I do have an empty copy of the main database (PostgreSQL as it happens) locally on my laptop, and it wouldn’t do any harm to write some JDBC (I use the word “app” in its broadest sense..!) to get used to the entity relationships there. Also, I plan to dig into some Gradle and Groovy.

On a more humanitarian note – not that my comment is of any material help – my thoughts are with those who were trapped in their vehicles on the M80 last night, just a few miles from here. Kudos to local shops and residents who came out onto the carriageway with supplies.

“As I understand it, these financial commitments are in addition to any denominational commitments.”

But of course, they offer the “benefits” of a denomination with a reduced rate compared to some other denominational cuts. In those cases, they appear to offer buying in low (comparatively in some circles) with their nascent quasi-denomination. Standing invitations for,authority and discipline too! All for a low, low percentage…

And so it operates no differently from a business seeking to gain customers by charging them less for a ‘less than’ product that they will market as ‘better than’. In the meantime, they rake in more cash.

Is “church planting” another one of those phrases that they use to mean something other than the basic, straightforward meaning? Because in my view, the local church should absolutely be making disciples, and hoping to grow and expand. We are witnesses; it’s our part to share the love of God and the message of forgiveness of sins through Jesus. It’s my own personal belief that 10 smaller churches is better than one mega church, so that believers can really know and love the people they gather with, and be free to share their lives and encourage one another. So once a church is over 100 people, I’d be looking to set apart a group from within there to start a new fellowship.

My issue with the Advance approach would be the level of control on how much the local church puts into mission and church planting. It’s got to be tailored to the local area needs. And I don’t know about a para-church church planting group – surely it’s the call of the church wherever they are to build the kingdom where they are? Something like Advance should either admit it’s a denomination, or it should be supporting the local churches where they ask for it, not dictating a formula for church growth.

I was part of a church plant in the early 90s. We had a handful of people, were blessed by our existing congregation (though not funded by it), we received a salary supplement from our denomination for 3 years, year 1 $1000/mo, year 2 $750/mo, year 3 $500/month. That was it.

We have always given 10% of our income away. Most to our denomination, but to other causes, as well.

We have helped to plant 2 churches in our history. Each time it was costly, in people and resources. These have been independent churches from day 1, never under our control etc.

We are not a member of any of these networks. We are SBC.

For me the key is not to be connected to weird groups that are led by weird people, or that are cash cows for some leaders.

And the church should be autonomous and not under the control, in whole or in part, by a national group. The SBC is good about that, as there is no top down control.

The ultimate question comes back to “what kind of churches are they planting?” I know in the SBC “church planting” is new-speak for planting reformed theology churches. Reformers are becoming more and more aware of how difficult it is to sneak in and hijack established churches. So instead, they are taking this route because they can have the kind of churches they want (reformed) without a bunch of us old fuddy-duddies standing in their way! I am becoming increasingly more leery of how the SBC’s Cooperative Program and North American Mission Board dollars are being spent. In the end, however, it usually amounts only to “sheep shuffling” since many of these new efforts do not produce very many new believers.

@ Root 66:
This is a great comment! As a Southern Baptist, I am very concerned about how the Cooperative Program. I am NOT interested in planting Neo-Cal churches and don’t appreciate contributions being used that way.

SBC churches used to plant ‘mission’ churches which were supported or partially supported by the home church until the mission could financially sustain itself. It was my impression at the time that this was a good idea. As I child I went door to door with my mother in developing a ‘religious census’ by which churches could determine where planting a mission would be do-able, and at the same time my father went from a home church to a mission to establish/ teach a men’s bible class as part of the program. This was all SBC before they started using the term ‘evangelical’ and during a lull in mass revivalism just before and even in the early BG days. What happened after that time I have no idea.

If I am correct there is a missions theory regarding international missions that what one does is establish a little church in some location and asap put it under local control even if-important idea here-even if the ‘pastor’ was poorly educated or even a relatively new convert-the big issue being local because language and ethnicity and cost.

As far as I know the ‘mission’ idea for this country was a good idea, and but I have no idea how the other idea worked in other countries. IIRC however BG was a promoter of the international approach I have just tried to describe, and I get the idea that Paul Washer’s missions agency works on that same idea.

Now somebody correct me if I have ignored some evidence here, but is church planting not what Paul was doing? And writing back letters to the church at this or that place?

One can make some really good arguments that what some folks are doing here and now have little or nothing to do with the gospel and most to do with money and more money, but I am thinking that the ‘church planting’ ideas have been around a long time with various variations.

I grew up in a church planting church. In the late ’40s and the ’50s, there were few Baptist churches in northern Ohio, Pennsylvania and Western New York. Our church was, at one time, the farthest NE SBC church. Every summer, we had our own two week VBS and one week revival services, followed by the same at two other locations, sometimes as far away as 60 miles. One of those locations was a first year location and the other a second year location. The goal was for the second location to become a church. The state organization, using Cooperative Program money, would employ a pastor to come to the community prior to the VBS and revival meeting. About half succeeded in becoming a church. We were supplied with college student summer missionaries to help with the VBS and canvassing.

Certainly, there is a financial benefit to those who lead church planting organizations (all these folks seem to live good), but IMO the current church planting frenzy within New Calvinism is all about planting reformed theology, not Gospel churches.

The aggressive proliferation of New Calvinism within the Southern Baptist Convention is accompanied by an intense church planting movement to plant 1,000 new churches per year at a $60 million annual expenditure. In my area, new SBC church plants are predominantly staffed by young reformers right out of seminary. Some YRR are bold enough to takeover traditional non-Calvinist churches, but most are hanging out shingles for new plants supported initially by SBC funds until they can stand on their feet. As a 60+ year Southern Baptist, I have never had a problem with church-planting until reformed-planting became the primary emphasis.

A word about Acts29, there is no 29th chapter in the book of Acts. The 28 chapters that are there do not refer to a church planting model in the first century which is characterized by the arrogance, militancy, stealth & deception, and aberrant belief & practice of Acts29 planters and other church-planting networks which have copied their techniques.

One can make some really good arguments that what some folks are doing here and now have little or nothing to do with the gospel and most to do with money and more money, but I am thinking that the ‘church planting’ ideas have been around a long time with various variations.

Agreed…church planting, as far as I can tell, goes all the way back to the New Testament. However, this new batch of planters (at least in the SBC) aren’t planting in new areas that don’t have any Southern Baptist churches. They merely plant new churches to push their own particular ‘brand’ of Southern Baptist church (i.e.–Reformed) and will oftentimes plant them within close proximity to other established SBC churches.

In the old days, we planted churches when the present church was busting at the seams and it calved off to an area where other SBC churches didn’t exist. Even the 50+ year old church I now attend had a “mother” or “sending” church. We were at one time, a mission. Somehow, that model makes more sense to me. As I said before, the way they are “planting” churches now merely amounts to sheep shuffling and little else.

They merely plant new churches to push their own particular ‘brand’ of Southern Baptist church (i.e.–Reformed) and will oftentimes plant them within close proximity to other established SBC churches…..In the old days, we planted churches when the present church was busting at the seams and it calved off to an area where other SBC churches didn’t exist.

Yes and no, in my experience. As to only planting churches when the already-existing church was bursting at the seams-no doubt some of that happened but what I saw was planting churches in rapidly developing population areas-like we saw after WWII. The men came home from the war, subdivisions began to be being developed, marriage/kids/dog/station wagon was all the rage, and churches were planted. Our church also planted churches in neglected and economically challenged areas-that is what I see missing today.

But, as to whether one ought to plant a reformed Baptist church in an area in which there was only a non-reformed Baptist church, actually I have no problem with that idea unless we are also going to say how dare someone plant a Protestant church in an area which already has a Catholic church. In other words, since when have Christian groups not competed with each other for followers? More than that, if one strongly believes in what one is preaching, why would one not do that? I do not think that any existing ‘church’ in some area has exclusive and protected right of access to that geographic location.

I am NOT interested in planting Neo-Cal churches and don’t appreciate contributions being used that way.

This is why I think that SBC churches need to start talking with their wallets and quit giving to the Cooperative Program and NAMB. Maybe that will get their attention!

Essentially, the congregations that do not adhere to reformed theology are bankrolling those that do and that’s NOT how our missions dollars should be spent! Unfortunately, most church members have no inkling that this is happening in the denomination.

Living in Fort Worth, I have access to one of the largest theological libraries in the world, so I trekked on down to SWBTS to see if I could find any minutes from the business meetings of an early church that documented this financial model of church planting. Finding the appropriate section of the archives wasn’t easy. Apparently there is not a lot of interest in historical church business meetings and things were a bit musty back there. Once I found the section, I decided to focus on the records from Antioch since they had been a model church. The by-laws had been badly damaged due to improper storage techniques during the middle-ages and were of no value. The financial statements, however, had been stored in an early version of zip-lock bags and were still mostly legible.

Of note in the income section of the church’s ledger were significant contributions that on occasion represented a family’s entire wealth. It was obvious that everyone gave sacrificially. Records showed that property deeds were signed over to the church for use at the congregation’s discretion. Resources were routinely pooled together to make sure that no one was without day to day necessities. The names of those that contributed had been redacted as no one was seeking any recognition or trying to gain any influence through their giving.

Distributions included expenses related to caring for the poor, needy, unfortunate, homeless, and etc. There were modest stipends for the church leaders that were devoting their entire energies to the church so they would be able to support their families. On occasion there were funds sent in direct response for pleas for help in other parts of the world. There was this one guy, Paul, who really seemed to get around and occasionally made such requests.

As to the question of church plants, Antioch had a specific strategy they followed. They helped fund missionaries who were going to areas where there were no churches, like that Paul guy mentioned above. When the seed took root in a community, the new believers formed a new congregation. Antioch had, in fact, started out this way. There were, however, no records of Antioch receiving seed funds from Jerusalem for administration costs or acquisition of buildings. Nor were there any records of Antioch forwarding a percentage of their contributions back to Jerusalem as a kind of founder’s fee. There was one curious entry where the congregation at Antioch denied a request to help fund a 2nd congregation at Ephesus. Apparently, there were some believers in Ephesus that wanted to ignore Paul’s admonition to submit to one another so they could devise hierarchical roles amongst men and women. The Antioch church didn’t see a need for the second congregation and suggested that the Ephesians work together to better understand Paul’s letter.

But, as to whether one ought to plant a reformed Baptist church in an area in which there was only a non-reformed Baptist church, actually I have no problem with that idea unless we are also going to say how dare someone plant a Protestant church in an area which already has a Catholic church. In other words, since when have Christian groups not competed with each other for followers? More than that, if one strongly believes in what one is preaching, why would one not do that? I do not think that any existing ‘church’ in some area has exclusive and protected right of access to that geographic location.

You are right and I concur. I guess as long as they fully disclose what they are (reformed) and the people attending have no qualms with it, go for it! I just find it puzzling to see another SBC church spring up almost across the street when we can’t even fill the churches we have. It seems counter-intuitive to me. It appears they are attempting to multiply by dividing and that never ends well and usually results in everyone losing.

Actually, all of the above, but with some of the terminology a bit less pejorative.

IMO one is not ‘making disciples’ if one nails some poorly informed person on the street corner, gets a repeat-after-me prayer to Jesus, and then the person is told to go get a bible, read and study it, and bingo you are a ‘disciple’. Certainly people come to individual aha moments in their religious lives, but individual aha moments are just the beginning of discipleship. Even the BGEA, as much as they preached come forward and pray the prayer and fill out the card also referred people to a local church.

And yes, come to our church/gathering/whichever or else let me give you information about churches in the denom which you have specified is an integral part of what canvassing is all about. Find the sheep which may have wandered off or been lost in the crowd or are new in town or who has some bad experience of being unwelcome elsewhere-whatever. Yes, it is about the church, not about making lone ranger believers.

So is the local church a ‘club?. It can get to be that, and it may be just that sort of thing which as driven away some folks. That needs opposed, people need to be given the opportunity to start again elsewhere.

What about enlist in our force? There are absolutely times of ‘decision’ again and again in discipleship whee one has to decide whose side one is on. An illustration of that is now being played out in some secular issues for example, and it becomes very much where does one stand. One can see that as ‘enlist in our force’ but if one is talking in terms of discipleship this idea should not stand alone nor should it be utterly neglected. It is hard to be salt or light all alone and from behind closed doors.

The apostles did watch over new churches and provide instruction and correction when needed.

III John
9 I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. 10 So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to and puts them out of the church.

And — repeatedly — with PERSECUTION. Persecutuons followed by growth/forward movement etc. is repeated over and over and over in Acts. If they’re going to claim to go by the book, where’s that manifesting?

Why where have you been? There’s horrific persecution against the Mighty Servants of the Lord. Look at the “season” of persecution that poor Mark Driscoll had to endure.

How is this group different than ARC with their goal of planting 2000 churches?

“ARC’s growth in the early years was slow, yet strong, averaging a few churches a year. In 2006, ARC planted 9 churches, in 2007 there were 16 more, 2008 saw 25, and by 2009, ARC was averaging around 50 new plants a year. With a more developed structure, ARC is now training and coaching hundreds of church planters each year. …Having planted over 600 churches, and with hundreds more partner churches, ARC has become not only a movement, but a collection of many “tribes” – all with a focus to see a life-giving church in every community in the world.”

Maybe it is a competition. I’ll pop some popcorn, sit back and see who “wins.”

Meanwhile, the church I grew up in is finishing their 3rd expansion in 30yrs. Read that as 3rd sanctuary/multi-purpose building. All on the the same plot of land…in the middle of no-where farm country. Same pastor, getting ready to retire in the next 5yrs or so. All is paid off – no debt. Slow, established growth. Deep relationships. Average weekly attendance is 100-200 on a good day. Strong mid-week children’s program that rivals that of the mega, multi-site church in the city where I work. They are active in missions – both financially and in sending teams each year. They exude the body of Christ. If that isn’t “church” planting, I don’t know what is. It has grown into a mature tree.

JDV wrote:
And — repeatedly — with PERSECUTION. Persecutuons followed by growth/forward movement etc. is repeated over and over and over in Acts. If they’re going to claim to go by the book, where’s that manifesting?

Why where have you been? There’s horrific persecution against the Mighty Servants of the Lord. Look at the “season” of persecution that poor Mark Driscoll had to endure.

On a more humanitarian note – not that my comment is of any material help – my thoughts are with those who were trapped in their vehicles on the M80 last night, just a few miles from here. Kudos to local shops and residents who came out onto the carriageway with supplies.

I’d venture a guess that not all of them were Bible believing Christians and yet they ‘did the right thing’. I wonder where this comes from if Man’s inherited state and his carrying on is only evil from the womb?

“Persecution means you’re not being allowed to persecute everyone else.”

What these men have had to deal with, I don’t know how they persevere. Why, Mark found a rock on his estate and since it had somehow gotten inside the high walls, why it didn’t just migrate there, someone must have thrown it in. And Mark knew it couldn’t have been one of his boys playing with a rock, because boys never play with rocks and anyway they were inside the mansion the whole time cowering from the helicopter that flew overhead! Of course, it was the black helicopters coming for Mark and his children. I’ve never heard a helicopter near my house, have you? And then Mark had a reporter show up at the gate of his mansion and push the buzzer and ask for “Mark Driscoll” and then Mark had to sort of disguise his voice a little and say “Er, not here.” NOW THAT’S PERSECUTION, BROTHER!

I have no problem with the idea of church planting in general. It seems like a good idea that, if your church gets very large, you break it into smaller groups that can more easily adapt to the individual community that they are in. Also, it would make sense to place some of these new churches in communities that really need the support a faith community could provide. The statement in James I about true religion comes to mind. This is not, however, the approach of “church planting networks.”

I attend a church that is part of a network of 20 churches. The network does not have a name, which makes it hard to research. The sole focus of this group of churches is to plant more churches. It is talked about all the time. The faith of the people who moved to our town from Seattle is constantly held up as an example. Everything the church does is directed towards the goal of getting big enough to plant a church.

I really do not like what this produces. Our church does absolutely nothing to help poor folks in our community. All the money the church has goes to upgrading facilities, expanding staff, etc. so that we can add more people so we can plant the next church. There is a huge emphasis on “taking care of” new people, often at the expense of long-time members. For instance, people going through hard times right when they join the church feel like they have never been more supported in their life. If they have been there a while and go through a hard time, they often feel an expectation that they be okay because they are a “more mature member.” There is a large emphasis on doctrinal purity. It feels like the church is saying “we know the right way to do church, so we need to make sure you know it too.” Now to be a member you have to go through a 7 week course on Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology. They keep talking about unity, but to them unity means having the same doctrine, not coming together for a common purpose.

I would like to see churches say, we are united around the Nicene Creed. Everything else is secondary. I can’t think of a single church/denomination that actually does that in practice. They may be out there, but I haven’t encountered them. I would love to see churches united in a common mission, to help the poor and tell people the Good News about Christ’s love, not bring them into an institution that wants to keep dividing into more and more iterations of itself like a single-celled organism. Finally, I would love to see large churches send members to small churches that are struggling to keep the doors open. Rather than planting a new mega and stealing everyone’s members, why not send groups of 10 families to churches that need some new life. What this requires, though, is laying down the idea that you have all the right answers, right doctrine, and the only right way to do church. I don’t think these networks have any desire to do that.

In summation, I believe church planting can be done in a positive way, I just haven’t seen it with my own eyes. What I have seen hasn’t been positive, and I don’t think I will attend a church planting church ever again in the future.

Those are a lot of really good points. Growth per se, either by church planting or by building larger campuses for some mega, can be either good or bad. Children ‘grow’ and that tends to be good. Cancers ‘grow’ and that is not good. Growth, then, depends on what is growing. Looking at growth quantitatively but not qualitatively is a really bad idea. In other words, ‘amen, Ricco, preach it.’

I’d venture a guess that not all of them were Bible believing Christians and yet they ‘did the right thing’. I wonder where this comes from if Man’s inherited state and his carrying on is only evil from the womb?

Yep, and when Jesus noted that even ‘evil’ people knew how to give good gifts to their children..reckon how on earth He came up with such an idea?? And then there would be the so-called good Samaritan-probably just a misunderstanding of some word in the Greek?? Or it never was a parable but rather some later addition from some conspiracy among the translators… Sigh. Headache time. Personally I think that on this issue the Calvinists are wrong and the Catholics are right-simple as that.

There is a huge emphasis on “taking care of” new people, often at the expense of long-time members. For instance, people going through hard times right when they join the church feel like they have never been more supported in their life. If they have been there a while and go through a hard time, they often feel an expectation that they be okay because they are a “more mature member.”

That’s “love bombing”. It’s Cult Church 101, a time-honored technique of getting the hooks into a prospect, then making the close. Once in, you don’t need to spend as much time on them, because hooks get into them in other ways as they make friends and their spouses and/or children make friends–it will cost them a lot to leave at that point, so you neglect them, because the whole point is NOT them, it’s not human beings, it’s growing a system, an empire, to the glory of the leaders. If it were truly about the people, as individuals, made in the image of God, of infinite value, then it wouldn’t matter one iota whether the person in need had been a member in good standing for 10 years or was a person visiting for the first time.

I jumped out of the practice of law for about half a decade in the mid to late-1990s to move into hi-tech B2B sales, because that’s where the money was at that time. Made great money until the bubble burst, then got into my present gig teaching. Anyway, as a sales rep and, later, sales manager, I saw a very common phenomenon: some reps could close the first deal with a prospect by being Mr. or Ms Everything to them, they’d court them and love them and throw themselves at them, but once they had their money, they’d neglect the customer, because for those sales reps, it wasn’t about the customer, it was about the money.

Same thing goes with the church you describe. Whether their doctrine’s right or not (and I’d have grave doctrinal misgivings about anyplace that made Grudem required reading), they’re by definition a cult. It’s not about the people, it’s about the system. And while you may experience love from some decent people there, you will experience death from the system.

I would like to see churches say, we are united around the Nicene Creed. Everything else is secondary. I can’t think of a single church/denomination that actually does that in practice.

That’s because there is no “christianity” but a bunch of “christianities”, many of which regard the others as false.

This “church planting” sounds like another way to fleece the sheep. It is aimed at churches that are authoritarian.

Red flags:
– “eldership” (this is not a real word) – There is no leadership. The church is the elders (and a bunch of sheeple who pay for everything). This is language right out of “1984” – only the proles and animals are truly free.
– No accountability – give us money and we may use it for this…or that….or whatever.
– How many blinking churches do we need? What’s the saturation point? The language reminds me of multi level marketing more that anything faith based.
– The recommended courses – got questions? – pay us and we’ll give you answers (and a never ending stream courses to answer the questions that this course will raise)

The churches that this outfit will cater to and try to create are churches like CLC with docile congregations that don’t question the elders. Unfortunately the best you can do is get the word out and hopefully limit the damage.

I attend a church that is part of a network of 20 churches. The network does not have a name, which makes it hard to research. The sole focus of this group of churches is to plant more churches. It is talked about all the time. The faith of the people who moved to our town from Seattle is constantly held up as an example. Everything the church does is directed towards the goal of getting big enough to plant a church.

It ain’t hard to do. Hell, all ya’ gotta’ do is have is a verse here, have a verse there (like climber’s pitons in a rock face), connect em’ with rope, and voila!, you got yerself an iron clad ‘Biblical’ doctrine.

I jumped out of the practice of law for about half a decade in the mid to late-1990s to move into hi-tech B2B sales, because that’s where the money was at that time. Made great money until the bubble burst

Check my comment to Jack above.

P.S. Anyone remember a now-dead website called “F**kedCompany.com”?
(Have to go to the Wayback Machine for it; go back to the 2001-2005 captures for a feel of that wild & crazy.)

We started attending this church a week after we moved 3000 miles to a town where we knew no one. We definitely got love-bombed (I can see it now), but we have made some great friends, my wife more so than me. My daughter LOVES the other kids there. She is an only child, so we place a high priority on her having friends.

We think about leaving a lot. This Wayne Grudem class almost made us do it.

Leaving a church is hard. I don’t know if we are doing the right thing right now. I do know that evangelicals need love just like everyone else. Our friends there who aren’t struggling and are past the love-bombing need us to.

Would any of these church planting funds have been used to help plant churches for Amy Carmichael, Gladys Aylward, Lottie Moon or George Mueller? Nope. But those were the real people out there doing the real work of the ministry.

They only wanted Lottie Moon to teach school. She said why bother teaching students who don’t want to learn when there were multitudes of other people hungry for the Gospel? So she had to disobey their orders in order to do the real work of the ministry.

The problem is that the real church planters who really do need the resources aren’t getting it.

1. This starts to feel like MLM, when you add in a whatever goes to the denom, whatever goes to ‘church planting’, etc, what do you have left for the actual church? Or outreach to your own community??? That seems to be left in the dust here.

2. Too many churches can seem inefficient to me. Certainly a rural community can only support a certain size of church, and I know there are a lot of issues with megas, but the more people you have paying for a church building, the more you have left to spend on things like shelters and helping the poor, in and out of the church. The traditional church ‘split’ way of planting made more sense to me. There are a big group of people in this church, and we might help with starting up the one next door. These things can be evaluated on an individual basis as to whether they actually make sense, and supported in tangible ways.

SBC churches used to plant ‘mission’ churches which were supported or partially supported by the home church until the mission could financially sustain itself.

I think I garbled my explanation above, but yes, I think a new church that meets a particular need and is connected to a particular church makes some sense. But it shouldn’t be a constant thing, or just sending a percentage of cash off into the ether without paying attention. That’s just a bad plan.

“what do you have left for the actual church? Or outreach to your own community???”
++++++++++++++++++++++++

that’s my experience with church… sucks all the resources out of you (time, talent, skills, energy, money). to build the institution. nothing left for my community.

ridiculous.

my neighborhood — i’m surrounded by, oh, a few thousand people all within 1/4 mile. interesting, hard-working, honest, decent & feeling people, all going through the journey of life just like me. they are relegated to remaining strangers because the organization many miles away takes it all for itself?

For me the key is not to be connected to weird groups that are led by weird people

Interesting that you should say this. Because of stuff related to my Real Life — Charismaniac Neighbor — I’ve been reading up on the Toronto Blessing / Catch the Fire movement. From there I went on to read about spiritual abuse in general, and this led me to the Elder Ephraim monasteries (Greek Orthodox) and also back to a group I am personally familiar with (Regnum Christi). Not to mention the Catholic “charismatic covenant communities,” many of which have been either dissolved or restructured by the local bishop because they went so far off the rails with all that shepherding stuff.

My takeaway from all of this depressing research is: Stick with normal people. Once you hang out with crazy cultists — of any desription, from any church — you may never get your sanity back.

That’s why I am grateful for the parish system. Most parishes I have been involved with have been havens of normalcy. The good, the bad, and the ugly. Here Comes Everybody. Just regular people…not some weird Spiritual Elite.

We started attending this church a week after we moved 3000 miles to a town where we knew no one. We definitely got love-bombed (I can see it now), but we have made some great friends, my wife more so than me. My daughter LOVES the other kids there. She is an only child, so we place a high priority on her having friends.

We think about leaving a lot. This Wayne Grudem class almost made us do it.

Leaving a church is hard. I don’t know if we are doing the right thing right now. I do know that evangelicals need love just like everyone else. Our friends there who aren’t struggling and are past the love-bombing need us to.

Not a great answer, but it is the answer I have today.

It sounds like the very trap I described above was laid for you also. I have some experience with this, having moved over a thousand miles to a new place and very quickly being lured into an abusive cult. They also loved Wayne Grudem, by the way.

Let me guess at least some of what’s going through your minds:

“Pastor’s kind of quirky, he says some off things, but surely he means well…and even if not, who are we to assume that the Lord might not have brought us to this very place for such a time as this, to help pastor see the truth?”

“But we’re having church. Maybe not in the traditional way, but we have true friends here and true fellowship with at least some people…this is church, it just has to run under the leadership’s radar a bit.”

“But we can be a light here, we can be light in the darkness, we can help people here…we should bloom where we’re planted!”

“No church is perfect, if you find the perfect church, don’t join, or it won’t be perfect anymore–ha ha!”

________________

One last thing I would ask: How great are those friends? Have you ever had a real old-fashioned ripping good fight with them where you really spoke your mind and they theirs, and seen the relationship survive? Have you seen them at their absolute best and absolute, selfish worst? Have you had them for years and years, through the good times and the bad times, through the times where you were a total jerk to them? Are they really, really, tried-and-true, stand-by-you-no-matter-what, literally-die-for-you-if-necessary friends? Have you tested how great they are? Have you told them what you think about the church network, related your concerns?

Because if this all hasn’t happened, you have no standing to call them great friends. Take it from one who made it out the other side of three destructive cults and discovered just who were his actual friends (hint, it made up about 10% of the people he thought were his great friends—most of those “great friends” at church ended up being somewhere on the spectrum between absolute indifference to our family and seething hatred of our family).

On the surface it sounds nice. You think of evangelism, reaching the lost, growing and doing God’s work instead of being a stagnant business-as-usual-church. I was very active in a new church-planting church plant for about 5 years and have discovered it’s more about money than anything else. I see it as religious franchising. The church plants are not able to take on their own identity or ministries, they must copy-cat the sending church(es) and have little autonomy. They get the notoriety of the mother church(es) and maybe get to share the cool worship band or preachers to attract new people. It mostly attracts people from other churches or Christians who haven’t been attending church. Very little new growth. On the surface it’s great but there is very little depth.

The church planting agencies are just a system to shuffle money around. Congregants feel like they are a mission minded church because “church-planting” is in the budget but they don’t really know what that means or where the money is really going.

I think part of it is just to make sure all the new grads coming out of SBC seminaries have well paying jobs. Its crazy that there are a ton of mini SBC church planting networks in addition to NAMB such as Pillar network. Alot of these networks dont include much info on thier websites so it hard to get an idea of how many are really out there. When I googled searched Southern Baptist church planting networks the first suggested “others searched” was “NAMB church planter salery” Tells you what’s really important – the paychecks.

“Are congregations being harmed by this over-emphasis on church planting?”

Yes. It was quite the experience when we found out our (former) pastor was embezzling church funds. It was unreal how poorly it was handled by the leaders – they were unable to think for themselves and just followed lawyers’ and church partners'(financiers) advice – which was influenced by 9marks and Acts 29. They did what they could to save the institution and image of the church rather than caring for those hurt by it and moving forward with guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Ironic, I checked on the website of a network my former church is a part of and it says “Church is a stable plant” Stable? Over 5 years old and the church still receives 50% of its money from outside support and a pastor was forced to resign because he was caught stealing from the church is stable?
I’m can’t tell if they are intentionally being deceptive or if they honestly are so deep into this “church-planting” idea that their perceptions no longer match reality.

The Christian systems that view people as pieces and parts of a machine. I heard it referred to once as mechanical spirituality. Spirituality is mechanized rather than humanized.

People are viewed as supply only, interchangable and indistinguishable from other people in their same category. Everyone is reduced to caricatures and roles.

If you go against the system and question it, or cause some clogging and hindrance, you break off as a part. Or if necessary, someone will come over with a wrench, compress you, turn you about, and fling you off into the abyss.

The system is set up to automatically replace you, it has no feelings or empathy or self-reflection, only concern that it keeps going. There are always more people to come in and take over where you left off (the caricature and reduced to a role version of you that is). Which anyone with surfacey characteristics and
categorical markers similar to your’s can supress themselves to fit. And the system just keeps on moving. Until the day it totally breaks down, of course.

A lot of church planting movements have a utilitarian approach to humanity running underneath it. I see a lot of utilitarianism in a lot of modern Western/American theology in general, actually.

A lot of church planting movements have a utilitarian approach to humanity running underneath it. I see a lot of utilitarianism in a lot of modern Western/American theology in general, actually.

Have thought about this for years, and when I teach on ethics, I tell students that the greatest influence upon Western Civilization over the last two centuries has been utilitarianism–our progressive tax codes, social welfare institutions, penal codes and corrections systems, euthanasia, abortion, etc., all can be traced back to the influence of utilitarian philosophies. Utilitarianism isn’t necessarily evil and there can be good and bad results, but there’s a vast difference between a belief system that promotes ultimates of right and wrong and a utilitarian perspective. Nothing anymore is good because it conforms to higher standards, it’s only good or bad because it makes people happy or unhappy, promotes pleasure over pain.

One thing that struck me squarely when reading Terry Virgo’s book when my church became a Newfrontiers “plant” (of course, the church had already been in existence at the time for a few years, but naturally, they counted it as a plant as if they were the sole reason for the church growth) is that he was all about pragmatism, whatever will grow the system, because his system was good.

Pastors in the system, at least the ones I knew, were willing to do awful things (but of course with white gloves, smiles and christianese words) so long as the end result was that “The Mission” or “The Kingdom” or “The Gospel” was promoted. Of course, Virgo’s system was inextricably woven, in his mind and that of his followers, with all of those good things. So if Virgo’s system was promoted, that was good, anything that did not promote it was bad. That’s not exactly utilitarianism a la J.S. Mill, but it’s sure closely-related. At the very least, it’s consequentialism gone wild. And the results were disastrous to the spiritual health of all concerned.

Essentially, the congregations that do not adhere to reformed theology are bankrolling those that do and that’s NOT how our missions dollars should be spent! Unfortunately, most church members have no inkling that this is happening in the denomination.

After 60+ years in SBC life, I can tell you that the average Southern Baptist doesn’t really give a big whoop about “theology” and that their missions giving is financing a proliferation of reformed theology in SBC ranks. But if you mess with their potluck dinners, you will have a war on your hands!

@ Deb:
Deb, this is off-topic, but do you recall the TWW piece that had an opening picture of some young church men (New Calvinists?) armed with assault rifles? Some sort of macho training they were going through, I think. I was telling someone about that, but can’t find it. If you remember it, please provide link. Thanks.

We started attending this church a week after we moved 3000 miles to a town where we knew no one. We definitely got love-bombed (I can see it now), but we have made some great friends, my wife more so than me. My daughter LOVES the other kids there. She is an only child, so we place a high priority on her having friends.

We think about leaving a lot. This Wayne Grudem class almost made us do it.

Leaving a church is hard. I don’t know if we are doing the right thing right now. I do know that evangelicals need love just like everyone else. Our friends there who aren’t struggling and are past the love-bombing need us to.

Not a great answer, but it is the answer I have today.

It’s a fine answer. Everyone has their reasons. My wife is a Christian. I don’t attend. We’re not involved in the church outside my wife attending the Sunday service.
It’s worked for us. The kids do actvities like team sports & swimming. We are also involved in our child care centre.

…the average Southern Baptist doesn’t really give a big whoop about “theology” and that their missions giving is financing a proliferation of reformed theology in SBC ranks. But if you mess with their potluck dinners, you will have a war on your hands!

That’s funny, because that sort of thing happened to me—for real! In two straight cultic churches where I was an elder, over my objections, the pastor managed to eliminate or severely curtail the potluck dinners. In the first instance, the pastor said it was because we’d “grown too big for these things”. In reality, we hadn’t grown at all, we were still a tiny church of just dozens. In the second case, the pastor was more direct: “The potlucks diminish the importance of my message.” There would typically be a few people in charge of getting things together in the church kitchen, so not everyone was always there for his sermon, so the potluck fellowships had to go.

Of course, as is common in cults, the last thing an abusive, narcissistic leader wants is people getting together in genuine, unscripted fellowship outside of his control. The care groups or life groups or whatever annoying thing they call them are generally heavily controlled by an associate of the leader who provides the leadership intelligence, so they’re not so dangerous to the leader’s unremitting control.

“Loret Ruppe, Reagan’s Peace Corps director, declared, “The number of people whose lives have been touched by the Peace Corps was estimated at one million every month.” This is one more reflection of the “Pope’s robe” mentality — the idea that foreigners are benefited simply by seeing idealistic young Americans. The Corps’s obsession with measuring its success not by what is achieved but by what can most easily be counted often ventures into the absurd.”

“Faced with 20 years of such grim evaluations, the Reagan administration got rid of the Inspector General. Instead of an IG that evaluated what volunteers did abroad, the Peace Corps got a new “Office of Compliance,” which mainly worried about whether the country’s programs were following regulations. Charles Peters, chief of Peace Corps evaluation in the 1960s and now editor of The Washington Monthly, observes, “That means the guy in charge doesn’t want to find out what’s wrong.” A former top Peace Corps official under Reagan confirms this charge: “You’re talking about Alice in Wonderland management. It’s not important what’s happening — it’s only important what people think is happening.” The Peace Corps under Reagan even stopped taking annual surveys of volunteers’ assessment of the Corps’s strengths and weaknesses.”

“As early as 1969, a Peace Corps official complained that the Peace Corps had become an organization “of the volunteers, by the volunteers, and for the volunteers.” Chilean sociologist Ricardo Zuniga, in his Harvard doctoral dissertation on the Peace Corps, observed, “There is a pervasive focusing on the giver rather than the host.” After surveying thousands of pages of Peace Corps literature, Zuniga concluded that it gives “almost no attention to ‘goal attainment’ (effectiveness).”

“Most of the former Peace Corps volunteers I have met conceded that their time abroad did little good for the foreigners but was a wonderful growing experience for them personally. It’s nice to have growing experiences — but we don’t morally canonize people for going to graduate school, and we shouldn’t do it for those who join the Peace Corps.”

Yes it is, I left one I attended for 40 years. It made a gradual, almost imperceptible change into an authoritarian institution over those 40 years and I had to leave when I could no longer stomach the misuse of some people that I knew. Leaving was difficult and I discovered that some relationships ended when I stopped attending. While I mourn the loss of some “friendships” I also recognize they must have been very shallow if they could not survive my simple act of attending elsewhere. Be sure to cultivate relationships outside the church you are attending.

Looking back the only other advice I could give is do not live a lie. If you find you need to hide your opinions and to censure yourself then you are likely repressing the Spirit and it is time to leave.

Honestly, I’ve never understood all this emphasis on church planting, especially in areas such as South Carolina, where it seems like if you drive ten miles you’ll pass 15 churches, most of which are Baptist. I knew a youth leader who took his youth group on a missionary trip to the coal region of Kentucky, because he said they were all lost there and they didn’t have churches. I asked him, if he was blind? Because there is no way you could drive through any small town in coal country and not see all the churches. Of course what he meant was that they didn’t have any large hip churches with rock music and skinny jean pastors.

But, I think my main problem is that I see Church differently then these people. To me the church, as in the Pastor, worship service, music, building, is not for winning people for Christ, but is the place for the already saved(or the Church) to come together to worship Christ, rejoice in fellowship with one another, receive encouragement in the Word, support from their brothers and sisters in Christ and should be tailored to fit those already in the church, not those of the world. A church should be welcoming and open to all, like how the early church was open to all in the first part of the service but then the unbaptized departed before the Lord’s Supper.

It is the role the Church, or all the believers, to bring people to Christ outside of the church building all the other days of the week, through Evangelism and behaving in the humble ways of charity and compassion modeled by our Saviour. The Preacher should not be preaching on Sunday morning, that is teaching time, he (or she) should be preaching outside of the church, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday.

Too many of these “church planters” seem to take “Field of Dreams” as some sort of apocryphal Gospel, and they misquote it “If you build it, they will come.”

@ Thersites:
“Looking back the only other advice I could give is do not live a lie. If you find you need to hide your opinions and to censure yourself then you are likely repressing the Spirit and it is time to leave.”

If you find you need to hide your opinions and to censure yourself then you are likely repressing the Spirit and it is time to leave.

This is exactly the place I came to about 14 years ago. The church we attended wasn’t so much authoritarian but certainly had specific belief requirements that I couldn’t reconcile (young earth creationism one of them). You couldn’t have a dissenting opinion.
I found that once gone, I didn’t miss church at all. I still maintain a certain spirituality but not Christian.
Fortunately my wife embodies a true spirit of tolerance & understanding which made it easy to be honest about how I felt.
But I wasn’t that invested in the church, once any group becomes your primary social network for the whole family, then it’s complicated.

That’s funny, because that sort of thing happened to me—for real! In two straight cultic churches where I was an elder, over my objections, the pastor managed to eliminate or severely curtail the potluck dinners. In the first instance, the pastor said it was because we’d “grown too big for these things”. In reality, we hadn’t grown at all, we were still a tiny church of just dozens. In the second case, the pastor was more direct: “The potlucks diminish the importance of my message.” There would typically be a few people in charge of getting things together in the church kitchen, so not everyone was always there for his sermon, so the potluck fellowships had to go.

I had a former pastor tell me that about the music in our church once. He didn’t want us to sing too much because it distracted from and overshadowed HIS sermon. Really? Full of yourself much? Frankly, most people appreciated the church’s music selections and enjoyed them because they were more traditional than other churches in our area and people liked that. That kind of heavy-handedness and narcissism is something our churches can do without! Most people can recall the words in songs, but don’t remember a lick of what the preacher said! 🙂

The care groups or life groups or whatever annoying thing they call them are generally heavily controlled by an associate of the leader who provides the leadership intelligence, so they’re not so dangerous to the leader’s unremitting control.

The New Calvinists have mastered this spy technique. Some churches require all members to be a part of a weekly “LifeGroup” meeting by putting that language in the membership covenant they have to sign. These small group meetings corral the membership under the surveillance of leaders who are hand-picked by the pastor and his elder team. They are always men (of course), faithful reformers who have aspirations to be an elder themselves some day if they walk the line and identify (squeal on) potential dissenters in the church. Just another great reason not to join yourself to a New Calvinist church.

That’s the last thing a narcissistic pastor wants in church! He can do just fine leading his congregation into “truth” without any intervention from the Trinity, thank you. Take this New Calvinist bunch, for example … they have subordinated the Son, diminished the Holy Spirit, and replaced the Almighty with a reformed higher power. There’s just no room for Holy God to speak to and through His people – the pulpit handles that in order to control every jot and tittle of the message.

…Leaving was difficult and I discovered that some relationships ended when I stopped attending. While I mourn the loss of some “friendships” I also recognize they must have been very shallow if they could not survive my simple act of attending elsewhere. Be sure to cultivate relationships outside the church you are attending.

Cult leaders know this, know how difficult it is to leave, intentionally make it difficult to leave. This could be by very directly defaming those who leave “They were among us, brethren, but they were never one of us—they were false disciples jus’ like Judas!” It could be more subtle, such as actively encouraging people to cut outside ties so that you can all “just do life together.” Some cults will do it by simply taking up all your extra time: Sunday morning service, Sunday evening service, Tuesday life group, Wednesday night service, Friday youth night, periodic Saturday picnics, retreats, sports days, carnivals, etc. A family can become thoroughly exhausted, especially if you’re driving 20, 30 miles to the mega campus to engage in all this “life together”.

No wonder people are afraid to leave, their lives have become not all about Jesus, but all about this particular church and this particular group of people, and they have little time to rest and even think and since they have no lives outside of the fellowship, even though it exhausts them and the relationships are superficial, they don’t pause to ponder that fact—they don’t have time to pause and ponder—and they’re very afraid of losing what little they have.

It may have made sense 1,950 years ago for the early church to be a bit drawn into itself due to the extreme oppression from the world at the time, just as it makes sense in a number of countries today, but in the 21st century North America, South America, Western Europe? Nope, that’s just a tactic of a cult to destroy you.

their lives have become not all about Jesus, but all about this particular church and this particular group of people

The 21st century church in America is not aware of the waning authority of Jesus in its gatherings. The average churchman is defined by the group he belongs to, rather than a personal relationship with Christ. Today, Jesus has little to no authority in churches which gather under the banner of Christianity. Church leaders may give Him occasional lip service, but really don’t want Him to have any Lordship over their church. The New Testament Church would not recognize the thing we’ve put together in most places.

I had a former pastor tell me that about the music in our church once. He didn’t want us to sing too much because it distracted from and overshadowed HIS sermon. Really? Full of yourself much? Frankly, most people appreciated the church’s music selections and enjoyed them because they were more traditional than other churches in our area and people liked that. That kind of heavy-handedness and narcissism is something our churches can do without!

I’ll take it one more step: That kind of heavy-handedness and narcissism is typically a sign that a pastor has no earthly clue what a servant truly is—the only acceptable job description of “pastor”, assuming it is a job, something that’s doubtful given the text of the New Testament—and very possibly has no earthly clue who Jesus is. Extreme narcissism of that sort is probably, at the end of the day, incompatible with Christianity because it betrays such a catastrophic misunderstanding of who the person is and who Jesus is and the difference between the two, that it seems extremely unlikely that anyone, other than perhaps very newly-minted Christian, still not knowing their right from their left, could say or think such a thing.

Most people can recall the words in songs, but don’t remember a lick of what the preacher said!

In many cases, the songs are about the only place you’d ever hear the name “Jesus” mentioned. Go to your average neocalvinist of Pentecostal, big show church, your average cult of personality. Keep count of how many times the name “Jesus” drops out of pastor’s mouth. At a church where I attended, the Wayne Grudem-loving one, we once went five weeks without pastor saying “Jesus”.

That’s the last thing a narcissistic pastor wants in church! He can do just fine leading his congregation into “truth” without any intervention from the Trinity, thank you. Take this New Calvinist bunch, for example … they have subordinated the Son, diminished the Holy Spirit, and replaced the Almighty with a reformed higher power. There’s just no room for Holy God to speak to and through His people – the pulpit handles that in order to control every jot and tittle of the message.

Yes, the Holy Spirit is missing in most churches today! A.W. Tozer put it this way, “If the Holy Spirit was withdrawn from the church today, 95 percent of what we do would go on and no one would know the difference…” Sadly, Tozer was absolutely spot-on.

In many cases, the songs are about the only place you’d ever hear the name “Jesus” mentioned. Go to your average neocalvinist of Pentecostal, big show church, your average cult of personality. Keep count of how many times the name “Jesus” drops out of pastor’s mouth. At a church where I attended, the Wayne Grudem-loving one, we once went five weeks without pastor saying “Jesus”.

This breaks my heart to no end…it’s ALL about Jesus! As music director at our church, I make every effort to keep Jesus at the center of our music and worship. At the end of the day, this is my biggest problem with reformed theology–these guys may know their doctrine, but they forget about the Master. What is the purpose of a Christianity without Christ?

Church leaders may give Him occasional lip service, but really don’t want Him to have any Lordship over their church. The New Testament Church would not recognize the thing we’ve put together in most places.

The idea, for most church leaders, even the decent ones, the ones who actually do know Jesus, of giving up their leadership as they know it (calling the shots, knowing that as they walk through the room people are admiring them, going to pastors conferences and talking about “my fellowship, my programs, my long-term strategic growth plan, stomping out “bad” doctrine, standing boldly for “good” doctrine, being a Hero of the Faith, drawing a salary and benefits which expand as their influence and church expand, casting their vision, being The Man) and just stepping down from the stage, turning off the spotlight, being a humble servant, submitting one to another, being just another member of the body, no more prominent or important than any other, willing to do those tiresome, thankless things, why that’d be a fate worse than death. Of course, that’s what Jesus wants to do: kill them, at least kill their vision of themselves as Great Ones.

Keep count of how many times the name “Jesus” drops out of pastor’s mouth. At a church where I attended, the Wayne Grudem-loving one, we once went five weeks without pastor saying “Jesus”.

I bet Grudem’s name was dropped more than the Name of Jesus! New Calvinist churches talk a lot about “God”, with only occasional mention of Jesus and hardly ever bring up the Holy Spirit. New Calvinist icons get more publicity than Christ in their sermons. You can test that yourself by listening to New Calvinist sermon podcasts with a tablet containing four columns: (1) God, (2) Jesus, (3) Holy Spirit, (4) Reformed Icon (Calvin, Grudem, Piper, etc.). When the final Amen is said, you will have more icon check-marks than a tally for Jesus, perhaps none for the Holy Spirit.

General William Booth, Founder of the Salvation Army, saw this coming:

“I consider that the chief dangers which confront the coming century will be religion without the Holy Ghost; Christianity without Christ; forgiveness without repentance; salvation without regeneration; politics without God; and Heaven without Hell.”

For many of the leaders? Money. Fame. Adoring fans. Narcissistic supply.

Again, quoting A.W. Tozer, his thoughts on the makings of a genuine and true leader:

“A true and safe leader is likely to be one who has no desire to lead, but is forced into a position of leadership by the inward pressure of the Holy Spirit and the press of the external situation.”

True leadership stems from humility and a genuine heart to serve. If your pastor lacks these traits, that pastor isn’t called of the LORD.
Our former YRR, Neo-Cal pastor once told my daughter that they “didn’t come here just to serve, serve, serve.” That was a HUGE red flag that something was seriously wrong!

I bet Grudem’s name was dropped more than the Name of Jesus! New Calvinist churches talk a lot about “God”, with only occasional mention of Jesus and hardly ever bring up the Holy Spirit. New Calvinist icons get more publicity than Christ in their sermons. You can test that yourself by listening to New Calvinist sermon podcasts with a tablet containing four columns: (1) God, (2) Jesus, (3) Holy Spirit, (4) Reformed Icon (Calvin, Grudem, Piper, etc.). When the final Amen is said, you will have more icon check-marks than a tally for Jesus, perhaps none for the Holy Spirit.

For many of the leaders? Money. Fame. Adoring fans. Narcissistic supply.

Again, quoting A.W. Tozer, his thoughts on the makings of a genuine and true leader:

“A true and safe leader is likely to be one who has no desire to lead, but is forced into a position of leadership by the inward pressure of the Holy Spirit and the press of the external situation.”

True leadership stems from humility and a genuine heart to serve. If your pastor lacks these traits, that pastor isn’t called of the LORD.
Our former YRR, Neo-Cal pastor once told my daughter that they “didn’t come here just to serve, serve, serve.” That was a HUGE red flag that something was seriously wrong!

And, if the pastor’s on a stage under a spotlight each week doing most of the talking and sitting in a boardroom presiding over a team of elders making strategic decisions like a CEO, drawing a salary off of the church which he thinks he has a right to based on the necessity that the church members tithe to support him, then he’s not even a pastor, he’s someone occupying a made-up position called “pastor” that doesn’t exist in the New Testament.

Our former YRR, Neo-Cal pastor once told my daughter that they “didn’t come here just to serve, serve, serve.” That was a HUGE red flag that something was seriously wrong!

No, they have come to take, take, take! But, they must first take away … take away the Gospel to All people, take away freedom in Christ, take away soul competency, take away individual priesthood of the believer, take away critical thinking. If they can maneuver you into this position, then they can begin to take .. take your minds and take your stuff.

“Deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Me,” that is, follow Jesus. And denying oneself is universal, for everyone, male and female, Jew and Greek, all comers = discipleship. The ground at the foot of the Cross is level.

General William Booth, Founder of the Salvation Army, saw this coming:

“I consider that the chief dangers which confront the coming century will be religion without the Holy Ghost; Christianity without Christ; forgiveness without repentance; salvation without regeneration; politics without God; and Heaven without Hell.”

Our former YRR, Neo-Cal pastor once told my daughter that they “didn’t come here just to serve, serve, serve.”

Then you won’t find those non-servant leaders visiting the sick in hospitals, praying with nursing home patients, reaching out to those in the community who need food and shelter, preaching the Gospel on a street corner, visiting in church member homes, preaching funerals, or otherwise serving the Body of Christ. But they always seem to have plenty of time to sit for hours in the local coffee shop where they drink, drink, drink espresso and tweet, tweet, tweet their lives away.

“Deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Me,” that is, follow Jesus. And denying oneself is universal, for everyone, male and female, Jew and Greek, all comers = discipleship. The ground at the foot of the Cross is level.

I bet Grudem’s name was dropped more than the Name of Jesus! New Calvinist churches talk a lot about “God”, with only occasional mention of Jesus and hardly ever bring up the Holy Spirit. New Calvinist icons get more publicity than Christ in their sermons. You can test that yourself by listening to New Calvinist sermon podcasts with a tablet containing four columns: (1) God, (2) Jesus, (3) Holy Spirit, (4) Reformed Icon (Calvin, Grudem, Piper, etc.). When the final Amen is said, you will have more icon check-marks than a tally for Jesus, perhaps none for the Holy Spirit.

That matches my experiences exactly.

OK…one more quote from Tozer and I’ll stop (maybe!), “It is either all of Christ or none of Christ! I believe we need to preach again a whole Christ to the world – a Christ who does not need our apologies, a Christ who will not be divided, a Christ who will either be Lord of all or will not be Lord at all!”

Jesus plays second-fiddle to no one–not even highly-educated, self-absorbed preacher boys!
He is LORD!

The question for me becomes: what is the ultimate value this group centers itself around? And is that ultimate value actually virtue or vice? And what values (and vices) are consequentially supporting all of this?

You see groups like SGM and many other churches sacrifice the sexual, spiritual, physical, emotional well-being of children for the greatest good of “insert here”. That sacrifice is made to keep the “happiness” of the gro…er… machine going. Without that ultimate value being maintained, the machine loses its function or power. Everything must submit to it and work toward that end.

Of course often it is the leader or leaders and their ego that is the ultimate value.

Or that greater good may be a Christian term or concept, but if you diagnose it and look at how the term is functioning, it’s not really representing a traditional Christian virtue or what it pretends, but something else vicious and misappropritated or only half or sometimes true.

I think the words gospel and mission and kingdom often functions this way. They are virtue-world statements, meaning they are meant to encompass a whole theology and picture of the world behind them when the word is used. But depending on the group, they mean different things and often include fringe ideals.

You see the package “gospel” but open it up and see that “homeschool or else” is in there. Another group’s “gospel” box has twenty other things in it once you get to looking and so on. But who is going to question the terms gospel-centered or kindgom-focused at first glance? What church wouldn’t want to be those things?

The Christian terms and ultimate values can sometimes act as bait and switch tactics.

It can mask true meanings, and what is happening doesn’t always match what is being said.

Some cults will do it by simply taking up all your extra time: Sunday morning service, Sunday evening service, Tuesday life group, Wednesday night service, Friday youth night, periodic Saturday picnics, retreats, sports days, carnivals, etc. A family can become thoroughly exhausted, especially if you’re driving 20, 30 miles to the mega campus to engage in all this “life together”.

I remember the pic too.
Seems they were peddling an alpha-male-warrior lifestyle for their respective congregations. All sanctioned by Scripture of course.
I also recollect making a comment to the effect of:

…Those guys can’t hold a candle to the Russian women who fought and died on the Eastern Front (1941-1945)…

Pastors in the system, at least the ones I knew, were willing to do awful things (but of course with white gloves, smiles and christianese words) so long as the end result was that “The Mission” or “The Kingdom” or “The Gospel” was promoted.

For The System.
For The Cause.
Like Citizen Robespierre’s Republique of Perfect Virtue, or Comrade Pol Pot’s Perfect Agrarian Democratic Kampuchea.

The New Calvinists have mastered this spy technique. Some churches require all members to be a part of a weekly “LifeGroup” meeting by putting that language in the membership covenant they have to sign. These small group meetings corral the membership under the surveillance of leaders who are hand-picked by the pastor and his elder team. They are always men (of course), faithful reformers who have aspirations to be an elder themselves some day if they walk the line and identify (squeal on) potential dissenters in the church. Just another great reason not to join yourself to a New Calvinist church.

I could be wrong but I think this is was a common tool in Stalin’s Russia, China and North Korea. Keep the sheep focused on the leadership and distrustful of each other.
All dictatorships take advantage of instability and perceived injustice.
At my wife’s church, they’re going through a series on how traditional “Canadian Judeo-Christian” values have been replaced by a new relativism.
Canada is a constitutional monarchy – a liberal democracy similar to the United States and most of Europe.
Christianity used to be in the advantage. A democracy with majority rule, if the majority is Christian then they will chart the course of the nation so to speak.
But Christianity is now finding itself as another seat at what is becoming an ever more crowded table. I think a vast majority of our society (Christian and otherwise) are ok with this. All of the religious folks I know have no desire to live in a theocracy much less impose it on others.
But there is a portion of the faithful that find the new reality unsettling. And I think it’s no coincidence that this portion is also patriarchal.
Where they were once assured of their place at the head of the table, now other voices – especially voices from formerly disenfranchised minorities and women (groups that were certainly considered inferior) – that place a the head is no longer there.
And so they turn their churches (or mosques or synagogues or “club”) into closed communities. These closed communities are fed a constant diet of fear – fear of the outside and each other – by a leadership that perceives itself to be at the head of that table by divine right.
Hence we have the situations documented here manifest themselves and we can see the results.

I don’t think these church planting movements will have an effect on our society over all. Most people aren’t interested in what they are selling. Hopefully overall it will be self limiting. You can’t save everyone. If Mark Driscoll can still attract followers then we can assume these churches will too.

Keep the sheep focused on the leadership and distrustful of each other.

Which may lead to the New Calvinist practice of “shunning” for members who don’t walk the line. If leadership puts a mark on you, then members are obligated to shun you when they cross your path in the community. They don’t want members to talk to you, to know what you know. Petty high-school stuff.

I don’t think these church planting movements will have an effect on our society over all.

No, but they are sure having an effect on Generation X, Y, and Z who are looking for a way to do church differently than their parents. The frenzy of New Calvinist church planting activity is feeding this desire. Movements come and go; ten years from now, another group will be serving up a new flavor of aberrant faith to attract seekers. America has gotten over the Gospel of the Cross of Christ – church must be more exciting than that these days.

Honestly, I’ve never understood all this emphasis on church planting, especially in areas such as South Carolina, where it seems like if you drive ten miles you’ll pass 15 churches, most of which are Baptist. I knew a youth leader who took his youth group on a missionary trip to the coal region of Kentucky, because he said they were all lost there and they didn’t have churches. I asked him, if he was blind? Because there is no way you could drive through any small town in coal country and not see all the churches. Of course what he meant was that they didn’t have any large hip churches with rock music and skinny jean pastors.
But, I think my main problem is that I see Church differently then these people. To me the church, as in the Pastor, worship service, music, building, is not for winning people for Christ, but is the place for the already saved(or the Church) to come together to worship Christ, rejoice in fellowship with one another, receive encouragement in the Word, support from their brothers and sisters in Christ and should be tailored to fit those already in the church, not those of the world. A church should be welcoming and open to all, like how the early church was open to all in the first part of the service but then the unbaptized departed before the Lord’s Supper.
It is the role the Church, or all the believers, to bring people to Christ outside of the church building all the other days of the week, through Evangelism and behaving in the humble ways of charity and compassion modeled by our Saviour. The Preacher should not be preaching on Sunday morning, that is teaching time, he (or she) should be preaching outside of the church, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday.
Too many of these “church planters” seem to take “Field of Dreams” as some sort of apocryphal Gospel, and they misquote it “If you build it, they will come.”

I’ve seen building projects justified by this “architectural evangelism” — while not so coincidentally, the actual evangelism training and initiative withered on the vine.

But Christianity is now finding itself as another seat at what is becoming an ever more crowded table. I think a vast majority of our society (Christian and otherwise) are ok with this. All of the religious folks I know have no desire to live in a theocracy much less impose it on others.

But there is a portion of the faithful that find the new reality unsettling. And I think it’s no coincidence that this portion is also patriarchal.

Where they were once assured of their place at the head of the table, now other voices – especially voices from formerly disenfranchised minorities and women (groups that were certainly considered inferior) – that place a the head is no longer there.

And so they turn their churches (or mosques or synagogues or “club”) into closed communities. These closed communities are fed a constant diet of fear – fear of the outside and each other – by a leadership that perceives itself to be at the head of that table by divine right.

Which also manifests itself politically, such as the marriage of Christians to “God’s Only Party”, looking for a Political Conquering Messiah to Make Things Right Again (i.e. get us back to the head of that table), culminating in the perfect storm of November 2016 and the fallout since.

“25But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,c 27and whoever would be first among you must be your slave,d 28even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Matthew 20: 25-28

I’m one who sees the purpose of the church IS evangelism and proclaiming ALL the truth taught in God’s Word.

That said, I don’t get the concept of “church planting.” I am ancient I guess but I remember when the SBC and the Methodists (pre UMC) grew new churches very simply. When enough people of those faith moved to a community and wanted a church, they formed one and THEN notified the hierarchies. As in, “We recently formed a Baptist or Methodist church at this town and location. We have xyz membership. We are considering partnering with you.”

when church (“ecclesia”) literally means an assembly of equals with an equal vote on all matters. It’s the Greek word for the Athenian pure democracy.

Why have I never heard this before? The word Ecclesia is tossed around, but gathering of equals? Is the word Ecclesia used in the Bible for church? For real? And equals is what it means? What’s up with all of the hierarchies? Something’s adrift in Evangel Haven.

When enough people of those faith moved to a community and wanted a church, they formed one and THEN notified the hierarchies. As in, “We recently formed a Baptist or Methodist church at this town and location. We have xyz membership. We are considering partnering with you.”

This sounds so normal. Or, people were meeting as a Bible study and then grew into a church-size-type-thing-with-financial-commitment-at-a-point that, just as you describe, considered formation and then looked for appropriate affiliation. Gone are those days, I guess.

I’ve told some local pastors that with the cost of starting up a church being so high, we can’t afford another “Great Awakening.”

Baptist and Methodist chucked grew rapidly on the US in the 1800s, partly because the preachers weren’t well trained, and would often preach for free. Church buildings were made by local builders, using materials on hand. They planted lots of churches because they could do it while spending little money.

We need to plant churches. But we’re going to have to find better ways to build better churches.

Whenever we get on the topic of ecclesia—some will argue that church buildings are unnecessary. But if spreading the Gospel was more effective without the use of any four walls, then why do cults have church buildings?

Think about the millions of dollars that cults will spend on lavish church buildings. Why? Because those buildings help them reach people. Those buildings provide a gateway for drawing people in. Church buildings are a help—not hindrance in spreading the Gospel.

The problem is not the resources and tools that get the job done. The problem is the wolves siphoning off the resources for their own benefit.

“25But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,c 27and whoever would be first among you must be your slave,d 28even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Matthew 20: 25-28

I know what you mean. Back at the old church I had worked with some members over the years to keep politics out of the church, most of it then was primarily from the red end of the spectrum. About the time I left the membership was taking a swing into blue territory and many of those I thought were allies in keeping out partisan politics turned out to be only interested in keeping out the other side. Since then that church has become a hotbed of virtue signaling, another reason I’m glad I’m out. I grow tired of those who act as if their politics is not political.

Brent Detwiler has just published an article which clearly shows CLC senior pastor PJ Smyth to be a liar and the assistant pastors of CLC to have aided him in his deception. They all need to resign. Members should demand it, and when they refuse to resign members would be well advised to find a new church.

Thanks for posting the link. Detwiler has done an excellent work in putting this together. Can there be any doubt? No.

Detwiler notes: “P.J. was 22 in 1993. He was 26 in 1997. That is the time period covered above. No one that age forgets these things. Would you forget these kinds of allegations against your father? Would you forget your father was arrested and put on trial for these abuses and perversions?”

– That Age 22 Forgetfulness Phase such as what happened with Andy Savage?

Perhaps more sweep-it-under-the-rug than forgetfulness. Unfortunately for those at the receiving end of the abuse, they never forget.

“P.J. was not, nor were the pastors, “seeking to communicate honestly” or in “good faith” in their statements to Covenant Life Church a year ago. They were seeking to deceive the members of Covenant Life Church and it worked. People really believed P.J.’s memory was flawed. It is hard to overstate the horrendous nature of their deceptive plan.

It is the same thing they have done in the past regarding the conspiracy to commit and cover up the sexual abuse of children.”

“If the pastors at Covenant Life Church were submitted to Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church, and the authority of Scripture, they would voluntarily resign immediately. Instead, there is every reason to believe they will continue to deceive and attempt to move forward in their plans for greatness with a new name, new membership, and new movement called Advance.

If so, every member must appeal for their repentance and ask for their resignations. If P.J. and the pastors don’t resign and come clean, I’d recommend people leave and populate godly churches or start new ones. And for the sake of Christ, warn others about their excessive duplicity.”

Search on Lindsay Shepherd’s inquisition and listen to the recording for a hint.

Blinkers. That was months ago. Shepherd got an apology from the university. As for Trudeau, he’s gone on to bigger & better embarrassments. Not a political blog so I’ll keep my counsel. I still don’t get what it’s got to do with this discussion. Religion wasn’t the issue. It was gender related not Jesus related (or Allah related for that matter)

@ Jack:
That doesn’t surprise me based on your comments here. My view is that left and right have the SAME problem when it comes to controlling and social engineering. It’s why I keep repeating: Church is voluntary. But compelled speech laws in Canada, for example, isn’t voluntary. There are tons of examples that are similar, here, so not picking on our Northern neighbors. The key is “control”. Totalitarianism.

@ Thersites:
It’s why I can’t find a church. They all want to tell me who to vote for or what social issues I must support if I am a real Christian. The lefty churches were actually worse in every attempt. Very shame censoring with perceived enemies all around. One can sense there would be no rational discussion from the start. Everything is political. Even Avocados.. 🙂

@ JYJames:
Yes it’s used in scripture. Ekklesia. Not church. My look into it defined it as akin to “called out ones to an assembly” and researched further historical context is pretty much what hoodicus relates.

The bigger problem, IMO, comes from the word “office” being added by translators. Descriptors such as pastor, teacher, etc are more like functions of gifting and are not necessarily static. Elder is simply someone with more experience as in more mature in the faith.

When I reasearched “appointed” as used for elder, I was astonished to find “hand stretching” as one of the definitions for 5he Greek Word. Denoting voting.

But as we all know from experience, we often gravitate to people who are wise and experienced in life. That is a simple choice. We make it all too formal and institutional, IMO.

I look at JTB as the forerunner. You don’t get much more informal and non institutional thuan that guy. He eschewed the Temple crowd.

@ Lydia:
This can be a huge problem with some churches and *christian* groups. Some, for example, cannot see any difference between being a true believer (TM) and being a Republican. Check out places like Rapture Ready.

It seems to me that the ecclesia in ancient Athenian democracy was quite different from what hoodaticus is saying, if one uses the definition of equality as it is used in today’s understanding in this nation.

The called out ones who constituted the assembly were a minority of the population by law.

So check this out. The first first link is about the ecclesia. The ecclesia was for adult male citizens only.

This second link addresses what constituted a voting citizen in ancient Athens. It is a real eye-opener. No women, or slaves or freedmen or resident aliens; in fact citizens were the minority of the population. Now that sounds like neo-cal understanding if indeed one wants to reduplicate ancient Athens and make that politic the rules of procedure of the church.

I have another problem here. Of those who first put the Jesus story into common Greek did they really mean that the word was to be understood as being highly selective as it surely was in Athens, or were they using the meaning of called out ones who constituted a group without the baggage of what that actually turned out to be in ancient Greece?

Along with this there is now, as I am sure everybody knows, a large academic pursuit of trying to see how a Jewish sect turned so non-Jewish (Greeco-Roman) so soon after the actual Jesus event. In simple and plain words, was Jesus actually a Hellenized Jew whose preaching could be understood to have included some influence from aspects of Greek politic and philosophy, or have we misread Jesus the observant Jew and thus are ‘we’ the ones who took a turn in a different direction.

But no, the ancient Athenian democracy was ‘egalitarian’ only for the minority of the population who qualified as citizens.

The bigger problem, IMO, comes from the word “office” being added by translators. Descriptors such as pastor, teacher, etc are more like functions of gifting and are not necessarily static. Elder is simply someone with more experience as in more mature in the faith.

As a Protestant, this is very much what I want to believe. But I can find no evidence for this type of church until post-reformation. Very early writings, such as 1 Clement and the seven letters of Ignatius, describe the offices of Bishop (episkopos), Priest (presbuteros), and Deacon (diakonos) as well established by the end of the first century. This is not to say that the type of church you describe did not exist back then, but there appears to be no written record of it. Here is an example from Ignatius (a disciple of the Apostle John, and who died in 107 AD):

“Let all things therefore be done by you with good order in Christ. Let the laity be subject to the deacons; the deacons to the presbyters; the presbyters to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as He is to the Father.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans; Ch 9)

Similarly, Polycarp (Bishop of Smyrna and a disciple of the Apostle John), in his letter to the church in Phillippi, wrote about the hierarchy of priests and deacons. I am still sorting out what this means for me. If anyone can point to historical evidence contrary to the type of church hierarchy described by Ignatius, Clement, and Polycarp, I would love to see it.

@ Forrest:
Only to say that church is voluntary. No one is compelled to attend or give money. We don’t have a state church. CBF, as one example, identifies with democrats. They view that as synonymous with being “Christian” with lots of virtue signaling ans social justice “talk”.

My view is much larger and comes from looking for a solution. I can only find personal responsibility as the catalyst for it. . Until the pew sitters see themselves as in allegiance to Christ and not a personality or institution, not sure what else can be done besides lots of discussion and warnings. The death knell seems to come from defending a group, institution, etc, instead of Christ or individual responsibility. What I think is a mistake is more virtue signaling and moral superiority when it isn’t warranted.

The other side have become just as Puritanical and controlling, speech censoring, etc. as our society becomes more like that expect more sects pushing back.. You can’t disagree without being labeled. I don’t go in for the virtue signaling because it’s basically empty platitudes and produces no real change. Talk has become so divisive and cheap but PC.

The bigger question is how and why people get sucked in to all of it. Are they looking for meaningful lives? Is it mainly social? Is it because families are so fragmented and no one has their back so they think church does? There are so many aspects to the lack of wisdom and personal responsibility in these situations.

I hope you understand I asked myself these questions long ago and the conclusions are tough going. Very tough.

@ Ken F (aka Tweed):
I think the early writings are very interesting and can give us insight into a lot of things but I don’t view them as being authoritative. We are talking about a totally different time. To me, it’s a lot like creation and God’s “intention” should be what we seek and the same now with the “new creation” after resurrection.

And think of the thousands of years it took and blood shed to come to the radical conclusion that adult humans could govern themselves! That was a radical concept even for the “church” (both RCC and Protestants) for over a thousand years. Many still fight the self governing concept every day, sadly.

Jesus also said don’t lord it over and many other things with that perspective.

Jesus also said don’t lord it over and many other things with that perspective.

Here is what Polycarp wrote about the role of priests/elders:

And the presbyters also must be compassionate, merciful towards all men, turning back the sheep that are gone astray, visiting all the infirm, not neglecting a widow or an orphan or a poor man: but providing always for that which is honorable in the sight of God and of men, abstaining from all anger, respect of persons, unrighteous judgment, being far from all love of money, not quick to believe anything against any man, not hasty in judgment, knowing that we all are debtors of sin.

So from very early on there is guidance that priests should not be lording over others. If church hierarchy today actually looked like this, would you still reject this guidance as not applying because it comes are from another time? As I read early church history, what stands out to me is how different Christians were from the secular culture in terms of their morality, compassion, mercy, etc. They were certainly not perfect, and one can find very bad examples, but I still get the sense that those ancient paths were not all bad, and that the modern church would benefit from looking at early church history. I guess I’m stuck on the fact that the same early church that handed down traditions that Protestants reject also handed down the written tradition (NT) that we do not reject. We tend to believe they got it right with the NT, but got it wrong with pretty much everything else. Right now that is not making sense to me.

@ Ken F (aka Tweed):
They were more than ‘not all bad’! We tend to not understand how barbaric the culture was then. We tend to read it all with post enlightenment filters. We are talking about a culture who thought nothing of putting a baby girl into a clay pot and throwing her in the garbage heap.

What if the caste you were born into was slavery? (Yes the Roman system of slavery was much more complicated) but the fact remains that was your lot to deal with. Christianity was one place that should be different. Philemon is an interesting example. The law said Oni could be put to death, Paul pleaded he be treated like a brother.

What about women? The law said inferior unless you were wealthy caste.

A helpful exercise for background is to read the Roman household codes. The Paterfamilias.

Have we evolved in some respects? And what does that mean to interpretation?

@ Ken F (aka Tweed):
I want to add one other thing that rarely gets mentioned. Literacy. The Jews were pretty good at educating their children to read. The Romans had a much more hierarchical approach to education.

Have we evolved in some respects? And what does that mean to interpretation?

I’m not really sure how to reply because I think we might be talking past each other. I thought you were making the case that the ancient meaning of Greek words as they were understood in the time of the early church should have relevance for how “church” should be done today. I thought I was building on that theme by showing how the meanings of some ancient Greek words were actually applied in the early church based on historical Christian writings. Whether or not those writings should be any kind of authority or example for us today is a good question. If there is merit in applying word meanings such as ekklesia in terms of how those words were interpreted in the earlier church, then it seems like we should do the same with words like episkopos, presbuteros, diakonos, and others. It’s not clear to me what gives us the authority to pick and choose which history to accept as normative and which to reject. I actually do not like what I have been finding, which is one of the reasons I am hoping that someone can point me to other ancient writings that tell a different story.

As for us evolving culturally, I’m questioning that as well. While our culture no longer discards post-born infants like they did in ancient Rome, our culture is quite efficient and productive in discarding pre-born infants. The main difference is our way of doing it is appears much more clinical – no one has to hear the screams. But does it make it any better? Similar for caste systems. I think we have improved from Greco-Roman times, but we still have many barriers to equality through what kind of family/ethnicity/gender/inheritance one is born into. The castes might be less formal, but they still well entrenched.

Maybe we are saying basically the same things but with different words. What does appear indisputable is how so many early Christians rose above their times through things like adopting discarded babies, taking care of the infirm, refusing to worship Caesar, etc. Now we have “churches” getting lawyers to throw people under buses.

But no, the ancient Athenian democracy was ‘egalitarian’ only for the minority of the population who qualified as citizens.

I’ve been thinking about this since last night. It seems kind of like the US Constitution. It guaranteed equal rights for all, but the late-1700s concepts of rights for all excluded a lot of people. Slowly, over time, those rights have been applied to a larger and larger spectrum of people.

The Greek system is not at all egalitarian by our standards, but it was revolutionary at the time. This was their best understanding of what equal right were. I am sure there are things we do today that 100 years from now will be considered barbaric.

Sorry but our society is way better than it was. Racism, castes etc may never go away but at least in North America they aren’t formalized anymore. Until the 1960’s my marriage would have been illegal based on the difference in our skin colour in many states.
There are no “good old days”

@ Ken F (aka Tweed):
The question I have is similar to yours, but I think I am coming at it from the opposite direction. I don’t understand how we get from Jesus’s words to the hierarchy we see in the institutional church in every branch (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant).

25-28 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the heathen lord it over them and that their great ones have absolute power? But it must not be so among you. No, whoever among you wants to be great must become the servant of you all, and if he wants to be first among you he must be your slave—just as the Son of Man has not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life to set many others free.” Matthew 20: 25-28

1-12 Then Jesus addressed the crowds and his disciples. “The scribes and the Pharisees speak with the authority of Moses,” he told them, “so you must do what they tell you and follow their instructions. But you must not imitate their lives! For they preach but do not practise. They pile up back-breaking burdens and lay them on other men’s shoulders—yet they themselves will not raise a finger to move them. Their whole lives are planned with an eye to effect. They increase the size of their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their robes; they love seats of honour at dinner parties and front places in the synagogues. They love to be greeted with respect in public places and to have men call them ‘rabbi!’ Don’t you ever be called ‘rabbi’—you have only one teacher, and all of you are brothers. And don’t call any human being ‘father’—for you have one Father and he is in Heaven. And you must not let people call you ‘leaders’—you have only one leader, Christ! The only ‘superior’ among you is the one who serves the others. For every man who promotes himself will be humbled, and every man who learns to be humble will find promotion. Matthew 23: 1-12

I don’t see how these verses square with how church is now. I completely understand your point about the Church Fathers. They seem pretty consistent in their teaching of apostolic succession and church hierarch. I do think that there is another way to read Irenaeus. He was writing against heresies and telling people to believe the people who can trace the lineage of what they teach back to Jesus. It could be seen as an appeal to Jesus’s words, not to a succession of apostles.

Thankfully, as 1 Corinthians 5 says, “All this is God’s doing, for he has reconciled us to himself through Jesus Christ; and he has made us agents of the reconciliation. God was in Christ personally reconciling the world to himself—not counting their sins against them—and has commissioned us with the message of reconciliation.” I’m not so sure anymore that there is one right way to worship. Maybe this is just hopelessly Protestant of me, but I think Jesus loves me anyway:-)

Re-characterizing ancient vocabulary meanings and for that matter nuances to fit in with today’s religious and political concepts, on the one hand, as compared to reading other writers of the day back then to gain insight as to how the word and the concepts were understood by the church at the time-that seems to be to be not just nonsensical but even perhaps deliberately misleading. Why remotely would we know better what they were saying back then than the people of that day knew what was being said and what it meant? That makes no sense at all to me.

And about child abandonment which you mentioned. I am the grandmother of two abandoned babies who were adopted into our family. Who thinks that has gone away somehow? Or who thinks that customs and attitudes in the US represent the customs and ideas of the whole planet? Or who thinks that all US citizens agree with each other for that matter? Have we evolved? Well, we are more proficient at the slaughter of the unborn, and more pregnant women survive the procedures that bring that about? But we as a nation condone this. Officially. By law and according to our constitution we permit this for any reason and for no reason, because all those non-people in utero are not really people. Thus saith the law of this land. Are we proud of this; is this ‘evolving’ and therefore good?

Are our families more stable? Do we have a dependent and basically hopeless underclass right on? In this nation of plenty do we have homelessness, out of control drug abuse, children trapped in nutritional inadequacy for whom the school lunch is their only decent meal of the day, single parent families where said single parent (usually mom) works two jobs and the kids do without and do we have a congress which cannot adequately solve the issue of even rudimentary health care to said kids? Yeah and whoopee; real progressive evolution right there in all that.

But the military options have definitely ‘evolved’ because when you look at the toll from the last century and then look at what we all are able to do now in terms of pure destruction we are far more destructive capable now than then. Our ability to cause possible extinction of ourselves is at hand.

But heaven forbid that Jesus actually meant to build his church in any traditional sense. Heaven forbid that when Jesus said if you love me keep my commandments there would be any actual commandments to keep because what he really meant was that we ought to be nice. Nice. Salvation by nice alone perhaps? But how can you be nice when you consider these things? Simple. Pretend that you don’t see them. No problem. Just don’t drive through that part of town. Ignore Lazarus at the gate. Remind yourself how great we are, particularly as compared to the really awful people of yore. Repeat after me: to pay much attention to this would be works and that is forbidden. To have something called church might mean that there are other people, perhaps even leaders, who would take church in a direction I don’t want to go. It might even mean that the Holy Spirit would undertake to lead church and not just whisper in my ear. Church might turn out to use plural personal pronouns of we and us and our and not just I and me and mine.

Sorry but I don’t buy any of it. We have not evolved. Church means church. Commandments are commandments. The gate and the way are narrow and difficult, and necessary. Sin is real and fatal and also forgivable, but only on God’s terms. There are eternal consequences, whatever ‘eternal’ means. No amount of scriptural redaction has changed any of that.

I noticed something about that Yelp page:
1) ALL reviews were either One Star (minimum possible) or Five Stars (maximum possible), nothing in-between.
2) Series of a couple one-star reviews were followed by a longer series of gushing five-star reviews.

I don’t understand how we get from Jesus’s words to the hierarchy we see in the institutional church in every branch (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant).
…
I don’t see how these verses square with how church is now.

This is an outstanding observation and question. I am struggling with it myself. Jesus also told us that he will send the Holy Spirit to teach us all things, and that the gates of hell will not prevail against his church. So the big question is this: did Jesus lie? If he did not intend for the church to be hierarchical, why do all the historical documents indicate that it was? Why do the very first disciples of the Apostles believe in the authority of these church offices if Jesus didn’t? Did they mess up that quickly? Did the gates of hell prevail? Or did Jesus set up a certain type of hierarchy out of deference to us because he knows that humans are hierarchical creatures by nature? Did you read the quote from Polycarp I posted above? If all bishops, priests, deacons, and whatever else we want to call our church leaders, followed Polycarps’s standard, would it be so bad? Jesus seems to have set a pretty high bar for church leaders – humble servants. Perhaps this is the nugget that our modern church culture is missing. I with I knew the right answer.

I never argued that there were. Rather, I don’t believe that the current days are any better or worse than the past days. We are better in some ways than our ancestors, but worse in other ways. Every culture and generation believes they are better than their ancestors. If they didn’t they would revert to the old ways, but they don’t. If we think that humanity is progressing we are deceiving ourselves – we have always been a mess and always will be (at least on this side of eternity for those folks who believe in eternity). Future generations will look back at us and shake their heads in the same way that we shake our heads at previous generations. But for different reasons.

I still don’t get what it’s got to do with this discussion. Religion wasn’t the issue.

I concede that including Trudeau in the discussion is a distraction. I don’t agree the problems in the academe are unrelated because it isn’t a religion and they apologized so we should move on. Ideology and religion are two sides of the same coin and I live in a university town where many of the inhabitants are more fervent in their ideology that those here who are “religious”. I’ll toss in again my oft used quote from Adams, “Ideology is a systematic way to be wrong with confidence”. Feel free to substitute in “religion” for “ideology”.

@ okrapod:
Your whole comment is good – I don’t know which part to quote. I learned today that the root of the word “heresy” is “choice.” The heretics were the ones who decided what to pick and choose rather than accept what was passed down. That’s pretty sobering. The problem between when Jesus was teaching his disciples and now is that the signal to noise ratio has weakened so much as to make the signal difficult to pick out from the noise. So many denominations and non-denominations are making mutually exclusive truth claims. How does one know with ones are right and which ones are wrong? I guess the words, “Lord, have mercy” from the old liturgies apply now more than ever.

Did you read the quote from Polycarp I posted above? If all bishops, priests, deacons, and whatever else we want to call our church leaders, followed Polycarps’s standard, would it be so bad?

I 100% agree. I think in any form of Christianity, being surrounded by people like that would be far superior than being treated like crap by people with the “right doctrine.” The problem is, we have examples in every branch, from Mennonites to Catholics to Calvinists, that have not. I don’t really know where that leaves us.

So many denominations and non-denominations are making mutually exclusive truth claims. How does one know with ones are right and which ones are wrong?

One of the chief reasons the gnostics lost credibility was all their competing claims, it is hard to maintain you have a special secret truth when there are a hundred others making similar but competing claims. Can we toss out the systematic understandings, the highly developed theologies that rely on debatable foundations, and simply agree on the basics and render the rest unimportant? While I agree we need to know what is wrong with some ideas, do we need to know which is the right one? Is there a right one?

@ Thersites:
I really like this comment. I don’t know if it is possible, but that would be exciting to be a part of!

I’ve been thinking about the Nicene Creed lately. We have something that almost all Christians agree on. I’ve never attended a church that has any problem with this creed. However, church conflict has almost always been about things not found in the creed. It seems like every denomination has beliefs in addition to the creed that it views as non-negotitiable. Penal substitution is a good example of this for many evangelical churches.

I would love to be a part of a body of believers that adheres to the creed and allows for disagreement and discussion on issues that fall outside its scope.

@ okrapod:
“Sorry but I don’t buy any of it. We have not evolved. Church means church. Commandments are commandments. The gate and the way are narrow and difficult, and necessary. Sin is real and fatal and also forgivable, but only on God’s terms. There are eternal consequences, whatever ‘eternal’ means. No amount of scriptural redaction has changed any of that.”

“I’m not really sure how to reply because I think we might be talking past each other. I thought you were making the case that the ancient meaning of Greek words as they were understood in the time of the early church should have relevance for how “church” should be done today.”

I think you might be right about talking past each other. I thought you were debating for the early writing. But I see you are trying to make sense of them.

I just don’t think it’s that cut and dried. Example would be females functioning in the Body. IMO, scripture interpreted as understood in that day and time was pretty radical considering Jewish women were separated at synagogue and Roman women often lived in separate part of the house with kids. Women were separated in most areas of society. Yet today, interpretation often does not recognize the evolution of women’s status in society. We don’t have cultural problems such as whether to cover or not while prophesying in the Body. Yet, totally different from the synagogue where they were separated behind a screen.

I think it’s normal for people of that time to accommodate their culture in interpretation such as the early church fathers seemed to be doing. Yet, it caused no end of friction between Jew and Gentile as we see in the letters. the terminology seems to call for a whole different structure and focus from a Temple whether Jewish or Pagan. I don’t believe a state church was ever God’s intention, for example. And I think we can look at JTB and see something very different and informal was being affirmed by Christ from the get go.

How do we accommodate meanings? Romans is a good example when it comes to interpretation of obeying government. We are now the government. We don’t obey leaders but agreed upon laws because we choose our government. A radical concept that just does not map to the 1st century. Freedom of speech, as an example, is a very spiritual concept that goes to the heart of our existence.

I think all I am saying is we have to be wise in interpretation when looking at then and now. What was the intention and accommodate from there. Scripture is not a how to manual as some like to interpret. And even remember to keep God’s original intention for His creation in mind. I don’t do a very good job of articulating my thoughts on it!

@ okrapod:
What I meant by “evolved” was more in line with our freedom to associate and speak without fear of being crucified (many young Jewish men were crucified back then) or later, put on the rack. . The structure for that freedom now exists for us but did not throughout much of history. That is something of an evolution. Not having the divine right of kings is a evolution. That was my thought process.

.Does not mean we use it wisely or that barbaric practices stopped. In many cases we put nice names to barbaric practices such as reproductive health or we censor speech and control people by calling it hate speech.

So the big question is this: did Jesus lie? If he did not intend for the church to be hierarchical, why do all the historical documents indicate that it was? Why do the very first disciples of the Apostles believe in the authority of these church offices if Jesus didn’t? Did they mess up that quickly

I don’t view them as offices but functions that are not static. Why use the head/body metaphor for the body of Christ? Why claim we are all priests?

Are we compelled to associate? All hierarchies tend to become corrupted at some point. We can search our entire lives for a church with no corrupted hierarchies. How do we even know if they operate as closed systems whether denomination or a local church?

This was often the topic at the sgm survivors blog. They spent a lot of time talking about finding a church with a leader they can follow.

But do we follow Christ or men? Whst is the point of a heirarchy, I guess?

This was a problem for Augustine and the Donatists. The Donatists were refusing to take sacrament from corrupt priests. This infuriated Augustine who wanted to wipe them out for disobeying.

@ Thersites:
That is sort of where I am even if I don’t sound like it because I love discussing this stuff with other people who think about these things even if differently from me.

I really despise systematic theology, though. My favorite story from NT Wright was a cab driver who saw his CofE clerical garb and made a mention of some of the CofE disagreements that made the news. The cabbie then went on to say the way he saw it was if Jesus raised from the dead, everything else is just rock and roll. 🙂

This was a problem for Augustine and the Donatists. The Donatists were refusing to take sacrament from corrupt priests. This infuriated Augustine who wanted to wipe them out for disobeying

It’s not much different now. Well, the church has no power to put people to death, thank God, but believers are definitely blacklisted if they refuse to participate in a local church, no matter what their reasons.

I love discussing this stuff with other people who think about these things even if differently from me.

My son writes software that models the behavior of complex cooling systems. Another group where he works maintains a large scale model to also test the behavior and they frequently compare results from the two methods in simulated tests. Occasionally they will test those results against the real thing.

The point is they do not get wedded to their models, they are imperfect representations of reality. In our case our models we develop are of a system we can only guess at and reality may be well beyond our feeble minds to comprehend. If my son were to get the idea his model of plant design was sacrosanct and anyone who disagreed should be driven off as a heretic, then he would be fired because he would be unsafe.

These theologies are aids to our understanding and useful for discussion but when we rigidly adopt them as the way things function we commit what I believe to be a grave error.

This was a problem for Augustine and the Donatists. The Donatists were refusing to take sacrament from corrupt priests. This infuriated Augustine who wanted to wipe them out for disobeying

It’s not much different now. Well, the church has no power to put people to death, thank God, but believers are definitely blacklisted if they refuse to participate in a local church, no matter what their reasons.

And we who do not go along with any particular tribe are expected to feel guilty for forsaking the assembly. Today my husband and I attended a church for the first time in 6 years. I was excited and hopeful, though I knew better than to allow my emotions to get in the way of my head and spirit. Worship brought tears to my eyes. No YRR. Good sermon. Good music, nothing loud and rock. We came home, discussed, decided to listen to a sermon online. Five minutes in…. John Piper was quoted.

So no…. no guilt for not going along to another church full of error. It is sad. But there you have it.

That’s why we have 30,000 Christian denominations and organizations worldwide, separated by the teachings and traditions of men – Jesus told us not to do that!

I have to disagree with what you have said, albeit I do not disagree that there is a problem here.

Jesus never said one word about organizations, like for example The International Mission board (SBC) or Catholic Social Services (RCC) or like The (local) Rescue Mission. Not one word.

As to how many ‘denominations’ there may be let us look at that. Jesus did say he would build his ‘church’, a singular noun. He did not say ‘churches’. If then we trace history back to the time when one proto-orthodox group had achieved supremacy and said group continues to exist, for those who believe there is only one ‘church’ in the sense of denomination/ organization then you and I and all of us should ASAP convert to Roman Catholicism. I am dead serious. If denominations are wrong, then protestantism is wrong, and we all need to reconcile with the ‘original’ group now known as Roman Catholic.

Once we have done that then we have to eliminate ‘organizations’ if they are wrong including Catholic orders one and all (who have their own ‘rule’ system) as well as a plethora of Catholic schools, hospitals and other charitable organizations as well as semi-independent service groups just to mention the tip of the iceberg of Catholic organization.

In the meantime we have to quit calling every group a ‘church’ especially not doing that to those of us with lots of ‘parishes’ which are not ‘churches’ in the evangelical sense of a self sustaining and self governing autonomous body.

Personally I don’t totally have a problem with undoing the reformation entirely, all of us becoming RC but with some more changes on the part of the RC itself in order to make that possibly. That is not about to happen, but it would solve the problem that you and others have about denominations and organizations.

I do have a problem with destroying organizations just because they are organizations, because that makes no sense at all. Some things do need eliminated, but not just because they exist. But if your statement is correct that it is all about the traditions of men then we need ASAP to destroy the Baptists and the Lutherans and goodness knows the Episcopalians and Methodists along with all the rest.

I know I sound flippant but I have seriously considered this matter as to what I personally should do. Which is worse, to be a Catholic who strongly disagrees with the Church on various matters, or to be a schismatic or a heretic who affiliates with another group because of those differences. Because there is no perfect answer for millions of people.

I take it that you mean there ought to be one ‘church’ and that any and all differences are traditions of men and should be forsaken for the sake of organic unity. Maybe so.

@ Bridget:
This quote from a letter John Adams wrote to John Quincey in 1816 seems relevant:

“All Religions have Something good in them: but the Ambition and Avarice of Priests and Politicions have introduced into all of them, monstrous Corruptions and Abuses, and into none more cruel bloody and horrible than into the Christian. My Advice to you, is to be extreamly cautious and reserved on the Subject of Religion.”

@ okrapod:
Not one of the denominations today can legitimately claim they go back to the original apostles. All of them, including the Roman Catholic Church were established centuries later. So we are left with the scriptures and the Holy Spirit to guide us as to what is right and what isn’t. There is some truth in many denominations and there are genuine believers there too. What we will not find is “One True Church”.

@ Ken F (aka Tweed):
I just don’t see how it’s viable. After Pentecost the newly converted diaspora pilgrims in Jerusalem eventually went home all over the region. I don’t see how it could be that organized.

This quote from a letter John Adams wrote to John Quincey in 1816 seems relevant:
“All Religions have Something good in them: but the Ambition and Avarice of Priests and Politicions have introduced into all of them, monstrous Corruptions and Abuses, and into none more cruel bloody and horrible than into the Christian. My Advice to you, is to be extreamly cautious and reserved on the Subject of Religion.”

Ignatious: “Be subject to the Bishop as to the commandment…We are clearly obligated to look upon the bishop as the Lord himself”
Ignatius was neither the first nor the last to proclaim positions of authority in the church. Thankfully Ignatius’ writings are not canon.

@ Lydia:
He also said this
“They [the Puritans] saw clearly, that of all the nonsense and delusion which had ever passed through the mind of man, none had ever been more extravagant than the notions of absolutions, indelible characters, uninterrupted successions, and the rest of those fantastical ideas, derived from the canon law, which had thrown such a glare of mystery, sanctity, reverence, and right reverend eminence and holiness, around the idea of a priest, as no mortal could deserve, and as always must, from the constitution of human nature, be dangerous in society. For this reason, they demolished the whole system of diocesan episcopacy; and, deriding, as all reasonable and impartial men must do, the ridiculous fancies of sanctified effluvia from Episcopal fingers, they established sacerdotal ordination on the foundation of the Bible and common sense. This conduct at once imposed an obligation on the whole body of the clergy to industry, virtue, piety, and learning, and rendered that whole body infinitely more independent on the civil powers…” (Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Laws, 1765).

@ Lowlandseer:
And he wrote this to Jefferson in 1816
“Conclude not from all this that I have renounced the Christian religion, or that I agree with Dupuis in all his sentiments. Far from it. I see in every page something to recommend Christianity in its purity, and something to discredit its corruptions. If I had strength, I would give you my opinion of it in a fable of the bees. The ten commandments and the sermon on the mount contain my religion.”

After Pentecost the newly converted diaspora pilgrims in Jerusalem eventually went home all over the region. I don’t see how it could be that organized.

This is a reasonable thing to think, but there are a few points that support unity and organization in the early church:
1) The Roman infrastructure was very developed, and the early Christians were able to make use of that infrastructure.
2) The New Testament mentions travel and correspondence among scattered leaders of the early church, and at least one church council.
3) The history of the New Testament shows that churches throughout the Roman empire were universally reading from the four gospels and various writings of Paul from early times. It looks like Origen may have had a complete listing of the NT by around 250AD, well before the Edict of Milan. While there were some differences between Eastern and Western churches in what books were finally considered canonical, most of the NT was not in dispute from the earliest of times.
4) Bishops were established in important cities like Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch very early in Christian history, and there is good historical evidence that they communicated with each other.
5) Irenaeus wrote about the widespread unity of the church in the 2nd century (see http://freedominorthodoxy.blogspot.com/2013/09/irenaeus-of-lyons-on-unity-of-church.html). This quote is significant:

For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world.

To make a claim that the early church was scattered and diverse one would have to have evidence. The absence of that evidence does not prove that they were not diverse. But the presence of evidence like the writings or early church fathers has to be explained away. I just finished reading “The Apostolic Fathers in English” by Michael W. Holmes. These early writings present a compelling picture of early Christianity (but some of it is pretty crazy, like Shepherd of Hermas). Those writings make the early church look organized and hierarchical from the very beginning. Whether or not is should have been like this is a good question.

Not one of the denominations today can legitimately claim they go back to the original apostles.

Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox both have pretty legitimate claims that they can. History is on their side on this one. But each consider the other to have split from the true faith. I think the same can be said for Coptic Christians, but I have less experience there.

If denominations are wrong, then protestantism is wrong, and we all need to reconcile with the ‘original’ group now known as Roman Catholic.

I mostly agree with this. However, there is at least one, if not two, other viable options: Eastern Orthodox and Coptic. They all claim (with good evidence) to be the original church, which makes it a bit difficult to know which one to revert to. From what I know about the East/West schism, I don’t see any reasonable way for it to be healed in my lifetime, so the choice won’t get any easier. As a purist, I would like to just follow the original and pure form. But I doubt it exists in a truly pure form, or in a form that has been well-adapted to modern pressures and concerns. Things were much easier for me before I started digging into church history – the history did not unfold as I had expected. For now I am staying in my SBC church, mostly because it has not yet gone YRR. But I am more loosely holding onto things I once considered essential.

@ Ken F (aka Tweed):
I’m currently reading through the ante-Nicene Fathers and through reading other stuff I was directed to Ignatius’ Letter to the Church at Tralles, written about 107ad, the year before he died. In chapter 2 he asks them to “be subject to the bishop”; in chapter 3, “to honour the deacons and in chapter 10 entitled “The reality of Christ’s Passion” you have what could almost be the forerunner to the Apostles’ Creed. So there is, in my view, an unbroken continuity from our day to the Apostles. It also shows that, less than 10-15 years after the death of John, there was some kind of hierarchical structure in the church.

1) are you referring to the Pagan temples that were converted to churches by Constantine?

No. I purposely avoided anything from 4th century on. Irenaeus was active more than two centuries before Constantine.Lydia wrote:

3) where they cherry-picking what they liked best because both views are arguable from scripture.

It’s possible, but we seem to have no way of knowing because contrary writings apparently did not survive.Lydia wrote:

What that hierarchy morphed into across Western Europe was not a good thing. It was bloody.

This appears to be a different type of hierarchy than in the early church – one where church and state were too friendly. During the period I discussed the relationship between church and state was anything but friendly. The European religious wars seemed to be mostly political rather than purely religious – the state benefited from the church and the church benefited from the state in a sick combination. That combination appears to be non-existent prior to Constantine.

I’m not saying I like the type of church hierarchy revealed by history. But I don’t see evidence to the contrary. Intellectual honesty requires us to take it into account.

It also shows that, less than 10-15 years after the death of John, there was some kind of hierarchical structure in the church.

It sure didn’t seem to take long to abandon the priesthood of the believers to go back to the old testament priesthood. At least we should be able to set aside the old claim that Constantine is responsible for the ills of the church, in particular the adoption of hierarchic offices.

That’s why we have 30,000 Christian denominations and organizations worldwide, separated by the teachings and traditions of men – Jesus told us not to do that!

I have to disagree with what you have said, albeit I do not disagree that there is a problem here.

Jesus never said one word about organizations …

Agreed. But, He did say “in vain they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Matthew 15:1-9). “They” in my mind would be any religious group which puts more emphasis on tribal adherence to the teachings and traditions of men than the pure Word of God.

It also shows that, less than 10-15 years after the death of John, there was some kind of hierarchical structure in the church.

It sure didn’t seem to take long to abandon the priesthood of the believers to go back to the old testament priesthood. At least we should be able to set aside the old claim that Constantine is responsible for the ills of the church, in particular the adoption of hierarchic offices.

Well, don’t let him off too easy. Unfortunately, he did much to combine the powers of church and state.

okrapod wrote:
Max wrote:
That’s why we have 30,000 Christian denominations and organizations worldwide, separated by the teachings and traditions of men – Jesus told us not to do that!
I have to disagree with what you have said, albeit I do not disagree that there is a problem here.
Jesus never said one word about organizations …
Agreed. But, He did say “in vain they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Matthew 15:1-9). “They” in my mind would be any religious group which puts more emphasis on tribal adherence to the teachings and traditions of men than the pure Word of God.

After reading this thread that was what i was wondering too. The Word of God seems to have taken a back seat. And moreover, where is Jesus?

@ Ken F (aka Tweed):
I don’t disagree with your last statement except to say, the hierarchy adopted is not really authoritative just historical. There are tons of other factors to take into consideration such as context, Holy Spirit, what Jesus modeled, etc, etc. Not even Paul had a how to do church manual. We don’t even take creation intention into consideration much less the new creation of the resurrection.

@ Ken F (aka Tweed):
Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that the hierarchical static model for the body of Christ is true. Who do you think practices it as closely to scripture (or early history) as possible? And would this make Elders authoritative over the operation of the institution or the people in the institution or both?

@ Ken F (aka Tweed):
In my opinion, the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox “chuches”, while they may have been earlier in history than other “churches”, are just as much man-made denominations as any “potestant” organization – and potentially just as prone to man-made traditions / doctrine that are not found in Scripture. To “return” to one of them solves nothing as far as I am concerned. For myself, I prefer to fellowship with my brothers and sisters in Christ in small Bible study / prayer groups that are outside of traditional bureaucratic structures.

One cannot ‘return’ to anything because when a thing is gone, like the past is gone, then it is gone and things have changed and there is nothing to ‘return’ to. To that extent I think you are dead right, but I probably think it for other reasons.

What I object to is when people actually distort history, say this this or that did or did not happen, when they are mistaken and are apparently just passing on propaganda rather than history. I believe that people who do this are usually not being malicious but rather are just passing on what they have heard and/or passing on what they want to believe to be true.

For example, I grew up SBC back in the 40s, and I heard right much about how right and necessary it is for churches to return to ‘the early church’ when there was nothing, not remotely anything, that even remotely looked like anything the Catholics might do. The problem is, there was no evidence in history that we know of at this point of any ‘early church’ that resembled what the Baptists in my childhood said was there, not in the proto-orthodox majority church nor in any of the early ‘alternative christianities’ discussed in any number of books on the market.

I still hear these same lies-yes lies-being promulgated, apparently by people who never took the time to check it out but rather believed whatever they were told and/or believed whatever they wanted to believe out of what they were told.

I am neither Roman nor Orthodox, or as Ken as mentioned Coptic, and I never said I was. But I am seriously offended (word has been edited for this site) that I was fed non-truths or half-truths for example as a child in the hope apparently that I (and others) would never investigate to see for themselves what the facts were. I cry foul on that, whether it is done by Protestants or Catholics or just the folks next door.

More than that, I think that when we misrepresent each other, misrepresent those with whom we disagree, we set up arguments for the opponents of the faith to use both against us and to their own detriment.

So, yeah, I don’t believe in ‘return’ either, but I sure do believe in ‘just the facts, ma’am, just the facts’.

@ okrapod:
My view is not just what histories there are (it’s pretty nuanced and many threads of “facts”) but what it means for us, if anything, today. The more history I read, and I have read a lot, the more I see there is a ton that just doesn’t fit in neat little boxes. The worst part of history are those we only really know from their detractors who wanted to paint them badly and destroyed much of their writing. I think of Pelagius of which little is left but he was a heretic, according to Augustine and others. But then I disagree with Augustine on many of his interpretations. And so on. It’s all history. But accepted historical “fact” is Pelagius was a heretic deserving of punishment.

Another example; I can’t say for certain John Adams was a universalist, but he sure sounds like one. But then, I have to also take into account his childhood and how he came to disdain Puritan Calvinism. And later, Catholicism, especially the Jesuits. And then the career opportunities for a man of his background. There is so much more to it and I can tell by reading him he put a lot of time and effort into both his political and spiritual search for truth. So what was he? Does it matter? I don’t know.

My question on the topic at hand is simply how spiritually authoritative is traditional church history? It’s interesting to know and discuss why it was so, but beyond that, I am at a loss.

@ Lowlandseer:
You seem to have misunderstood me or I do not communicate well.

I never said Adams was not a Christian.

Like Adams, I can be a Christian and still think that Christianity has shed a lot of unnecessary state Church blood throughout history. I can be a Christian and disdain Puritan doctrine yet agree they were industrious.

Not only is his touching on Christianity/religion interesting in his letters but a great resource for a reading lists! He read it all.

Btw, Thomas Jefferson had a big change of heart on Islam after dealing with the Barbary Pirates and their countries. It happens.

In my opinion, the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox “chuches”, while they may have been earlier in history than other “churches”, are just as much man-made denominations as any “protestant” organization

That’s exactly what it is, though: your opinion. With all due respect, you have not offered one shred of evidence to back up your opinion. You have simply asserted it. Mere assertion is not even argument, let alone proof.

Here is my assertion, which I believe I can back up with plenty of actual evidence: The historical record does not support your opinion. It simply doesn’t.

Again, assertions to the contrary are simply that: assertions. They are not arguments based on actual historical evidence.

@KenF is reading actual primnary sources from the earliest centuries of Christianity — including some written by people who knew the apostles personally.

@Okrapod has apparently already read at least some of those same sources, perhaps even all of them.

There may be legitimate disagreement about the import of these early writings, but it cannot be denied that they paint a certain picture of the early Church — complete with bishops, hierarchies, sacraments, and clear belief in Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist. (See the Didache, the writinsg of Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin Martyr, and Irenaus of Lyons, among many others.)

Just as one example:

The Didache, one of the earliest Christian writings — which may come from the first century and certainly from no later than the mid-second — describes a typical church service of the time. It bears ZERO relation to a 21st-century Baptist service. It is liturgical, sacarmental, and Eucharistic.

This is the historical recoed. It cannot be wished away. You may not like it, but it is what it is.

Make sure you get the actual facts, though. When people start claiming that there’s “nothing about Jesus” in the historical Creeds (Apostles’, Athanasian, Nicene), well, that’s not the “facts.” Just sayin’. 😉

It sure didn’t seem to take long to abandon the priesthood of the believers to go back to the old testament priesthood.

Well, so much for that “Gates of Hell Won’t Prevail” stuff, then.

If you seriously think the Church went off the rails within 10 years of John’s death, then God help us.

Do you realize that the early Apostolic Fathers — the same guys talking about bishops and sacraments — actually knew the apostles and the NT writers personally? Ignatius, Clement, et al., did not just pop out of nowhere, like Athena from the head of Zeus. They knew the apostles. They were taught by the apostles. They were ordained by the apostles. They were transmitting what they had been taught — the teaching of the apostles. That’s why they are called the Apostolic Fathers.

If they were inclined to go off the rails, don’t you think their mentors (i.e., the apostles) would have said something about it?

Paul said, “Hold fast to what has been handed down to you (paradosis), either in writing or orally.” That’s exactly what Ignatius, Clement, Justin, and the other Fathers were doing: holding fast…and handing down.

(BTW, that word — “paradosis” — is the exact same word the Gospels record Jesus as using when he condemned “traditions of men.” Some Protestant Bibles — rather conveniently and tendentiously — translate it differently when it’s being used in a positive sense. But it’s the exact same word. IOW, the NT does NOT condemn all tradition [paradosis]. It actually commends some — the written and oral traditions handed down by the apostles!)

Also BTW…how do you know exactly when John the Evangelist died? That’s not recorded in the Bible at all. We have some ideas about it only from historical research. Isn’t that a “tradition of men,” then? 😉

OK, gotta do some keyword research for a client, so I’ll sign off on that note. Love yas, my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Make sure you get the actual facts, though. When people start claiming that there’s “nothing about Jesus” in the historical Creeds (Apostles’, Athanasian, Nicene), well, that’s not the “facts.” Just sayin’.

@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
I am having a hard time understanding what’s going on in this thread. Are you equating history with spiritual truth? I really haven’t seen anyone on this thread claim that history doesn’t exist or try to rewrite it. That seems to be the accusation from two people at this point. Why? We could spend our entire lives studying one single aspect of history and not read it all!

I find all of it extremely interesting,though, and my intention is not to offend anyone. Still, history does not inform my faith or my beliefs from scripture or the Holy Spirit except for understanding context.

At the same time I respect those for which it does inform their faith and beliefs as long as they reciprocate. Still I will disagree as part of a discussion.

The Canon for you was different than it was for me. I find that sad except it was less to learn for Bible drills:) I love reading Apocrypha. Yet, The Didache , wasn’t included in either. I probably don’t use the correct RCC terminology so please forgive in advance.

This is strange concerning the Didache, if true, from Wiki:

“Lord” in the Didache is reserved usually for “Lord God”, while Jesus is called “the servant” of the Father (9:2f.; 10:2f.)”

When people start claiming that there’s “nothing about Jesus” in the historical Creeds (Apostles’, Athanasian, Nicene), well, that’s not the “facts.” Just sayin’.

I love the simplicity of The Apostle’s Creed because it accommodates semi-Voltaireian free thinkers like myself. It’s latitude is broad enough to be unaffected by the longitudinal meridians scribed out by various Christian theologies, and yet narrow enough to navigate the uniqueness of Messiah in all the world.

The Nicene Creed is great too, until it alludes to and begins to promote PSA (penal substitutionary atonement), a doctrine which I flatly reject.

The Athanasian Creed has clauses, sub-clauses, and convolutions that I have issues with, and which violate my conscience.

But yeah, you’re right, the historical Creeds are indeed focused on Jesus, regardless of what they say or don’t say about Him.

@ Ken F (aka Tweed):
In my opinion, the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox “chuches”, while they may have been earlier in history than other “churches”, are just as much man-made denominations as any “potestant” organization – and potentially just as prone to man-made traditions / doctrine that are not found in Scripture. To “return” to one of them solves nothing as far as I am concerned. For myself, I prefer to fellowship with my brothers and sisters in Christ in small Bible study / prayer groups that are outside of traditional bureaucratic structures.

That question was not addressed to me but I may have something to contribute at this point.

And I have no idea what ‘spiritual truth’ is or would be as opposed to something just true or not true. Perhaps you can just overlook the fact that such a thing as ‘spiritual truth’ makes no sense to me at this point.

However, Christianity is based on what we claim to be an historical reality. We think there is enough evidence to substantiate the belief that there was such a person as ‘Jesus’. We think then that there is enough evidence of proximity in time and location to believe that the gospels contain accurate writing down of the oral traditions associated with the life and teachings of this historical person called ‘Jesus’. We believe that the resurrection actually happened, even though historians tell us that there is no way that they can validate or disprove something which is both unlikely and which happened only once-their discipline does not give them the tools to do this. At minimum and regarding the resurrection we think that the available record is sufficient to believe that ‘something happened’ or at least to believe that the observers at the time thought that something actually happened.

This is all historical, and it is this on which Christianity is based.

Now for the next step we say that there is or there is not enough evidence in certain early writings to justify a belief that the early writings are consistent with the beliefs among the witnesses and their immediate students of the events. Then following further writings there is or is not enough evidence to say that the later writings are consistent with the former writings, and on and on.

Was there a Jesus? What did he say and do? What did the witnesses think he said, did and meant? Is there a continuity of these concepts or does there come forth reason to doubt the concepts and reports themselves?

Christianity is not some free-floating philosophy. It is an historical tale which is or is not accurately told over the centuries and therefore something which might-just might-be believed.

So, is Christianity just something ‘spiritual’ like some other religious or philosophical ideas? It is not. It stands or falls on its historical actuality.

Now someone may say that this is not what they think. Okay, then, they and I live on different planets. Of course we would not understand each other. I don’t know anything to do about that one way or the other.

That question was not addressed to me but I may have something to contribute at this point.

And I have no idea what ‘spiritual truth’ is or would be as opposed to something just true or not true. Perhaps you can just overlook the fact that such a thing as ‘spiritual truth’ makes no sense to me at this point.

However, Christianity is based on what we claim to be an historical reality. We think there is enough evidence to substantiate the belief that there was such a person as ‘Jesus’. We think then that there is enough evidence of proximity in time and location to believe that the gospels contain accurate writing down of the oral traditions associated with the life and teachings of this historical person called ‘Jesus’. We believe that the resurrection actually happened, even though historians tell us that there is no way that they can validate or disprove something which is both unlikely and which happened only once-their discipline does not give them the tools to do this. At minimum and regarding the resurrection we think that the available record is sufficient to believe that ‘something happened’ or at least to believe that the observers at the time thought that something actually happened.

This is all historical, and it is this on which Christianity is based.

Now for the next step we say that there is or there is not enough evidence in certain early writings to justify a belief that the early writings are consistent with the beliefs among the witnesses and their immediate students of the events. Then following further writings there is or is not enough evidence to say that the later writings are consistent with the former writings, and on and on.

Was there a Jesus? What did he say and do? What did the witnesses think he said, did and meant? Is there a continuity of these concepts or does there come forth reason to doubt the concepts and reports themselves?

Christianity is not some free-floating philosophy. It is an historical tale which is or is not accurately told over the centuries and therefore something which might-just might-be believed.

So, is Christianity just something ‘spiritual’ like some other religious or philosophical ideas? It is not. It stands or falls on its historical actuality.

Now someone may say that this is not what they think. Okay, then, they and I live on different planets. Of course we would not understand each other. I don’t know anything to do about that one way or the other.

Mercy wrote:
Max wrote:
Ricco wrote:
… Nicene Creed … We have something that almost all Christians agree on … It seems like every denomination has beliefs in addition to the creed that it views as non-negotitiable.
That’s why we have 30,000 Christian denominations and organizations worldwide, separated by the teachings and traditions of men – Jesus told us not to do that!
Max, you are absolutely right! Creeds, men, systems….. nothing about Jesus. All man made.
Nothing about JESUS in the Creeds???
SMH.

Just give me Jesus. I love the simplicity of that. People have debated doctrines and creeds for millenia. It tends to result in negatives.

Make sure you get the actual facts, though. When people start claiming that there’s “nothing about Jesus” in the historical Creeds (Apostles’, Athanasian, Nicene), well, that’s not the “facts.” Just sayin’.

I don’t see anybody claiming that Jesus is absent from the creeds. I do see how He is pretty much absent from a lot of the comments, which instead emphasize the writings of men. Best not to shoot from the hip.

Just give me Jesus … People have debated doctrines and creeds for millenia.

Religious folks have tortured, imprisoned, and killed other religious folks over differences in belief and practice (e.g., John Calvin). Some try to draw Jesus into their madness, but He will have nothing to do with it.

Religious folks have tortured, imprisoned, and killed other religious folks over differences in belief and practice (e.g., John Calvin). Some try to draw Jesus into their madness, but He will have nothing to do with it.

I don’t see anybody claiming that Jesus is absent from the creeds. I do see how He is pretty much absent from a lot of the comments, which instead emphasize the writings of men.

TWW blog threads go so much better when commenters focus on the real enemy, rather than picking on each other. We will never settle doctrinal differences this side of Heaven, but we can sure take on abusers when they manifest themselves within churches professing whatever form of doctrine. And sometimes, we can take on certain doctrines when they drive bad boys to be bad … like this New Calvinism which has produced more than its share of church problems and the subject of many watchblog pieces these days.

The Didache, one of the earliest Christian writings — which may come from the first century and certainly from no later than the mid-second — describes a typical church service of the time. It bears ZERO relation to a 21st-century Baptist service. It is liturgical, sacarmental, and Eucharistic.

And a full third of the Didache is how to recognize phony preachers and con men.

Mercy wrote:
Just give me Jesus … People have debated doctrines and creeds for millenia.
Religious folks have tortured, imprisoned, and killed other religious folks over differences in belief and practice (e.g., John Calvin). Some try to draw Jesus into their madness, but He will have nothing to do with it.

I agree 100%.
My mother was raised in a Catholic girls school in the 30’s. She was a strict Roman Catholic. Her view of the Bible was knowledge gained at school, although she made sure that we knew that it belonged to the RCC. She knew her creeds, dogmas, and every canonized saint. She believed every word out of the mouth of the Pope. When i dared to question papal inconsistencies, at the age of thirteen, she then said that the Pope was human and entitled to make mistakes. So much for the vicar of Christ. When i declined to go to commnion on any given Sunday i was called names, such as “Satan”. She was verbally and physically abusive. Years later, as a young mother, I was saved. And she was very angry. I was belittled for becoming born again.

So i get the whole thing, Max. Sadly, this woman, my mother, never uttered the name of Jesus. She has never known what it is like to have a relationship with him. To this day she is not saved. Her Jesus is not my Jesus.

I have read the comments. Some of it is historically interesting. But within the conversation Jesus is seldom mentioned. All of human history points to Him. But He is often missing. It isn’t about religion. It is about faith. Who is the object of our faith?

It also shows that, less than 10-15 years after the death of John, there was some kind of hierarchical structure in the church.

There’s this thing called “the troop-size limit” among humans.

The average human can recognize only about 100-150 others (the size of a hunter-gatherer tribe or Army Company) as individuals; more than that tends to blur into an abstract collective mass. Once you exceed the troop-size limit, some sort of organization, hierarchy, and specialization of roles is inevitable.

Mercy, countless millions of faithful churchgoers never get this. It’s not about religion; it’s about relationship. In many churches, there is a mistrust of personal Christian experience – they just want you to shut up, sit down, and be like them. Many religious groups think the essence of Christianity is contained in the doctrines of men – such as doctrines about grace rather than a direct experience of Grace, an encounter with the living Christ.

My mother was raised in a Catholic girls school in the 30’s. She was a strict Roman Catholic. Her view of the Bible was knowledge gained at school, although she made sure that we knew that it belonged to the RCC. She knew her creeds, dogmas, and every canonized saint. She believed every word out of the mouth of the Pope. When i dared to question papal inconsistencies, at the age of thirteen, she then said that the Pope was human and entitled to make mistakes. So much for the vicar of Christ. When i declined to go to commnion on any given Sunday i was called names, such as “Satan”. She was verbally and physically abusive. Years later, as a young mother, I was saved. And she was very angry. I was belittled for becoming born again.

Your mother sounds like a type example of “doing everything right while completely missing the point”.
Very similar to those professional Christians who get a light shined on them here at TWW.
Fundamentalism with Rosaries.

And the danger on your end of flipping equally out-of-balance in the opposite direction in a “Communism begets Objectivism” reaction.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
This brings up the question of the named “Bishop” of a city around 2AD. Were they “overseers” of every house church that might be meeting in a city? Was there a central Location meeting place for Christians in some cities? Any historians here know the answer?

Religious folks have tortured, imprisoned, and killed other religious folks over differences in belief and practice (e.g., John Calvin). Some try to draw Jesus into their madness, but He will have nothing to do with it.

Late in life, I’m more and more convinced that Jesus is far more concerned with your deeds than what you (generic you) believe or disbelieve.

Max wrote:
Religious folks have tortured, imprisoned, and killed other religious folks over differences in belief and practice (e.g., John Calvin). Some try to draw Jesus into their madness, but He will have nothing to do with it.
Late in life, I’m more and more convinced that Jesus is far more concerned with your deeds than what you (generic you) believe or disbelieve.

Sorry to bear this horse again but been reading John Adams and his letters and your comment reminded me of this gem that sounds like your comment. I keep running across such words that resonate with me:

“I am weary of contemplating nations from the lowest and most beastly degradations of human Life, to the highest Refinements of Civilization: I am weary of Philosophers, Theologians, Politicians, and Historians. They are immense Masses of Absurdities, Vices and Lies. Montesquieu had sense enough to say in Jest, that all our Knowledge might be comprehended in twelve Pages in Duodecimo: and, I believe him, in earnest. I could express my Faith in shorter terms.:

He who loves the Workman and his Work, and who does what he can to improve it, shall be accepted of him.”

When i dared to question papal inconsistencies, at the age of thirteen, she then said that the Pope was human and entitled to make mistakes. So much for the vicar of Christ.

Mercy, no orthodox Catholic has ever claimed that the pope is infallible every time he blows his nose or says “boo.” That is a position known as ultramontanism, and it was soundly defeated at the first Vatican Council.

Of course popes can say wrong things. I have a few issues with the current pope on that score. We honor the man. We don’t worship him. The doctrine of papal infallibility is very strictly defined: It applies only to very carefully delimited situations (i.e., when the pope is formally teaching and reinforcing a truth concerning Faith and Morals, “ex cathedra,” for the benefit of the entire Church). This is actually very rare.

I know you claim you know all about What Catholics Believe, but your comments belie this. I am sorry you have been burned and hurt by your experience, and, as I said before, I am certainly not trying to re-convert you. But if you are going to lambaste the Catholic Church, at least please try to know what you’re talking about. Right now you don’t.

Growing up Catholic does not necessarily mean you know all the facts. If you are truly interested in learning the facts (so you can at least know what you’re attacking), you can avail yourself of the copious resources available via Mr. Google…starting with the 1992 Catholic Catechism. 😉

What response would satisfy you? Blind, total agreement with everything you write, no matter how wrong I think it is?

I do not question or belittle your personal experiences. I am not responding to them at all. I am questioning your facts — i.e., re the papacy. This has nothing to do with “experiences.”

I am sincerely sorry for your bad experiences with your mom. I come from a very dysfunctional family, so I can certasinly relate to bad experiences. In my case, I had a hyper-critical dad. But neither of my parents was particularly religious, so that didn’t really enter the picture. Still, bad experiences are bad experiences, whether or not they are conncted with religion.

Later, when I get a chance, I will share a few of my own personal experiences. Assuming that’s allowed! 😉

The doctrine of papal infallibility is very strictly defined: It applies only to very carefully delimited situations (i.e., when the pope is formally teaching and reinforcing a truth concerning Faith and Morals, “ex cathedra,” for the benefit of the entire Church). This is actually very rare.

Even if it rare, saying that ANY man’s statements are infallible takes a lot of hubris.

CGC, I thought you left here a while back because of all of the anti-Catholic bigotry here.

The doctrine of papal infallibility is very strictly defined: It applies only to very carefully delimited situations (i.e., when the pope is formally teaching and reinforcing a truth concerning Faith and Morals, “ex cathedra,” for the benefit of the entire Church). This is actually very rare.

Even if it rare, saying that ANY man’s statements are infallible takes a lot of hubris.

CGC, I thought you left here a while back because of all of the anti-Catholic bigotry here.

It looks like I am partly, if not mostly, to blame for the recent dialogue concerning church hierarchy, authority, and history. Rather than responding to each comment sent my way, I’ll try to clarify some things in this comment. My thoughts on this are the by-product of asking questions and rebelling against abusive church authority, like the types highlighted by TWW. It really boils down the question of “Says who?” Whatever we want to believe about Jesus, does it matter what he wants us to believe about himself? If so, how are we to sort out what is true vs what is false among the cacophony of voices each claiming to be right? What makes my interpretation any better or worse than yours (generic you)? Can we have fellowship with other Christians who have radically different beliefs about Jesus, or are there some essentials beliefs that are required for any meaningful fellowship?

I very much appreciate the “Jesus, me, and the Bible” mentality because I came from it. But which Jesus and which Bible? The Jesus created by God but not co-eternal (as Arius taught)? Or the Jesus born as a human who became divine somewhere along the way? Or the Jesus who was spiritual but not human? Or the Jesus who is eternally subordinate to the Father? Or the Jesus who was a great moral teacher and role model but not divine? Or the Jesus who never actually existed? Or the dozens of other versions of Jesus? Most of these versions of Jesus can be (and have been) supported by the Bible.

And which Bible? In first century there was no New Testament. In the second century it started to form, but different churches had collected different letters and there is no verified complete listing until 367 AD. And it did not take long for false gospels and false epistles to enter into the mix. Which gospels and epistles should we use in our “Jesus, me, and the Bible” approach? If we assume the 27 books are correct, which textual families should we choose when those Greek texts differ? And which interpretations should we use when word meanings in the original Greek are not quite certain? For those of us who cannot read Greek, which English translations are best? And by what standard (authority) should I accept anyone’s recommendations?

I have not yet found a way to get around the need to appeal to some kind of “authority” to sort this out. The word “authority” has several meanings, which could add confusion to the conversation. I believe the ancient creeds are authoritative not in the sense of being legally enforceable, but in the sense of reflecting truth (authenticity) that expert witnesses passed down. Maybe like how one would describe Albert Einstein as an authority in physics. One can choose to reject those creeds, but based on what? It seems that the alternative to creeds and traditions is for everybody to believe whatever they want to believe. Is that what Jesus had in mind for his church?

The one creed that has been universally agreed upon by Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic and the vast majority of “high church” denominations throughout history is the Nicene Creed (followed by the Apostles Creed, and less so the Athanasius Creed). It turns out that Christians who reject the Nicene creed comprise a vanishingly small sliver of Christianity. This does not make the Nicene Creed true. But folks in that small minority should know that they represent a fringe group, and that perhaps they could be wrong. Are these creeds mere traditions of men open to debate, or do they reflect the true faith passed down by people in the know (authorities)?

Whether or not the church should be hierarchical, it has been for the vast majority of its history. Whether or not it should continue to be this way is mostly theoretical since humans are pack animals that tend to follow a leader (even all the individualists tend to look congregate into recognizable patterns). In my mind it’s more of a question of how the hierarchy should function, but that is just my non-authoritative opinion.

For people who like to believe that the Christian faith is a simple matter of just following Jesus, my best advice it to avoid asking questions, and certainly avoid diving into Christian history. The actual history is a real mess. It makes me wonder why Jesus left it this way. I’m thinking it is because he wants us to wrestle through this so that our faith in him will be meaningful. In the same way that Jesus has both a human nature and a divine nature, it seems like his body in this world (the Body of Christ = the Church) has both a human and divine nature. On the human side, it consists of a very messy process of sorting out traditions passed down from men (and women). On the divine side, he left us with the Holy Spirit to teach us all truth. But the rub is this: we can only know about all of this because Jesus taught his apostles to teach others. There is no way to remove the human element.

I hope this helps. So much more could be written but I think I’ve already made it too long.

The Nicene Creed is great too, until it alludes to and begins to promote PSA (penal substitutionary atonement), a doctrine which I flatly reject.

I completely agree with you on Penal Substitution, but I don’t follow how you find it in the creed. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox likewise strongly reject Penal Substitution, but they both follow the creed.

The doctrine of papal infallibility is very strictly defined: It applies only to very carefully delimited situations (i.e., when the pope is formally teaching and reinforcing a truth concerning Faith and Morals, “ex cathedra,” for the benefit of the entire Church). This is actually very rare.

Even if it rare, saying that ANY man’s statements are infallible takes a lot of hubris.

CGC, I thought you left here a while back because of all of the anti-Catholic bigotry here.

BTW a good friend of mine recently joined a local Independent Fundamental Baptist church. She and her family could no longer endure the liberalism in her Methodist parish.

Well, I totally see where she​ is coming from. Nonetheless, there is such a thing as “out of the frying pan, into the fire.” At his church website, her new pastor claims that only HE can correctly interpret Scripture. Any Scripture. If you are having trouble understanding a particular Scriptural passage — any passage​ — you are to come to him, this pastor. And to no one else. I am not making this up.

No Pope would ever claim such a thing. Never, ever, ever. IMHO (ed.) many evangelical and fundamentalist pastors are “super-popes,” arrogating to themselves overweening authority that even Gregory VII never dreamed of.

For the record, Catholics believe that papal infallibility applies to the office, not the man. As Karl Keating says, it is a negative protection, not a positive one. When the pope teaches *ex cathedra* re faith and morals, formally and officially, the Holy Spirit keeps him from teaching error — for the sake of the faithful. Moreover, what he teaches *ex cathedra* must be fully consonant with Scripture and Sacred Tradition. He cannot make things up. He is bound by 2000 years of Sacred Tradition.

If the pope wants to promulgate error — under these carefully defined and delimited circumstances — the Holy Spirit will prevent this. Even if that means keeping the errant pope from saying anything at all. (*Ex cathedra,* I mean. Shooting the breeze with reporters on a plane is an entirely different story. Not ex cathedra. Not infallible. Not even close.)

Personally, I will take this over Protestant “super-popes,” both lay and clerical, who are convinced that they alone have the true and proper interpretation of every single verse in the Bible. ISTM that many if not most of these dudes DO think they are infallible every time they blow their blasted noses. I find this rather problematical, especially since these super-popes are usually self-appointed. But maybe that’s just me. 😉

Religious folks have tortured, imprisoned, and killed other religious folks over differences in belief and practice (e.g., John Calvin). Some try to draw Jesus into their madness, but He will have nothing to do with it.

Late in life, I’m more and more convinced that Jesus is far more concerned with your deeds than what you (generic you) believe or disbelieve.

IMHO your view is entirely consonant with Matthew 25: 31-46, which does not even mention the word “faith.”

I think there will be a lot of surprises in Heaven.

I love C.S. Lewis’s story of the Young Calormene in *The Last Battle.* “If you love Me, keep My Commandments.” That pretty much sums it up, IMHO.

Well, I feel as if I’ve over-contributed on this thread, so this will be my last comment for awhile.

First, I want to thank KenF for his kind words. Second, I want to apologize (again) to Mercy. I did not at all mean to minimize or dismiss her bitterly bad experiences. Bad experiences, especially when we are growing up, are traumatizing. Been there. Totally get it. Really.

At the same time, I must explain that it chaps my grits when someone claims that another person “isn’t saved” or “doesn’t have a personal relationship with Jesus.” ONLY Jesus knows the heart. Only Jesus. No one else.

I wanted to say, “Well, what *else* would they drink at cookouts?” I also wondered what she was doing snooping on their cookouts and noting what they were drinking! But I was too intimidated to say anything. She’s a very bossy person with an overpowering personality. It’s only recently that I’ve gained the courage to stand up to her meddling cray-cray.

Anyway, I guess I’m saying that I think the state of someone else’s soul is none of our cotton-pickin’ business. If we are concerned about someone else’s soul, we should pray. Not condemn. But I realize that I usually fail to take that advice myself, so I’m a fine one to talk. Plus, I recognize that it is always incredibly difficult when we are dealing with a close relative who has deeply hurt us. Again, been there. Get it.

But re assumptions that certain people “aren’t saved” just because they express their faith in ways unfamiliar to modern American evangelicals: I stand my ground here.

Does the Orthodox yiayia who kisses icons and lights candles have a personal relationship with Jesus? You bet she does!

Does the Knight of Columbus sitting in the Perpetual Adoration Chapel, lost in loving adoration of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, have a personal relationship with Jesus? You bet he does!

Does the Coptic Christian about to be beheaded by ISIS because he refuses to renounce Christ have a personal relationship with Jesus? You bet he does! What’s more, he puts the rest of us to shame.

Someone mentioned the “writings of men” versus “relationship with Jesus.” To the person who wrote this, with all due respect: Have you ever read those “writings of men”? Let’s look, for instance, at the Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 AD). Do you know when Ignatius wrote those epistles? As he was being taken to Rome to be martyred for Christ (eaten by lions). Have you ever faced martyrdom? Have you ever faced being torn limb from limb by lions? Maybe when you have, you can dismiss Ignatius’ epistles as having nothing to do with a personal relationship with Jesus. Until then, I would very respectfully submit that you — and I — are not worthy to unlatch Ignatius’s sandals.

I completely agree with you on Penal Substitution, but I don’t follow how you find it in the creed. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox likewise strongly reject Penal Substitution, but they both follow the creed.

This clause from the Nicene Creed:

…For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate…

The words “for our sake” have been construed through allusion by some as an affirmation of PSA.

The Athanasian Creed gets even more complicated with numerous sub-clauses woven in.
I have issues there too, which is why, so far as the Creeds go, I prefer the simplicity of The Apostle’s Creed.

@ Ken F (aka Tweed):
“Really boils down the question of “Says who?” Whatever we want to believe about Jesus, does it matter what he wants us to believe about himself? If so, how are we to sort out what is true vs what is false among the cacophony of voices each claiming to be right? What makes my interpretation any better or worse than yours (generic you)? Can we have fellowship with other Christians who have radically different beliefs about Jesus, or are there some essentials beliefs that are required for any meaningful fellowship?”

Great points. Besides the basics I am a big proponent of soul liberty. As far as what’s authoritative that is also, IMO, a part of soul liberty and the Holy Spirit —if we so choose. No one thing is gyoing to be authoritative for everyone. Yet big groups will often claim one thing as authoritative whether a human leader, scripture, histyory or even an institution.

My grumble with the any creed is the systematic approach that leaves out Jesus’ time on earth. I understand the reason but it’s an important part that seems to get downplayed. At least scripture, in all its varying translations,gives
us a glimpse of what He modeled but, sadly, more time is spent on how Paul and how to do church, in many groups.

After my experiences in the mega world, I stopped giving any sort of credibility with the “vast majority believe it” appeal. Yes, millions can be wrong on something very important. That is where soul liberty becomes very important to me because if I am wrong, it’s on me. I should never be in any position to insist people believe as I do. That’s where the behavior part is also important.

I enjoy the interaction but i realize many dont. there is a lot of room for misunderstandings and hurt feelings.

Muff has it right about behavior over doctrine. It’s crucial. From pedophiles in the church to allowing a mere human to replace the HS.

I also fear that history shows more following of humans than the Holy Spirit. The HS is rarely mentioned anywhere.

@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
“If the pope wants to promulgate error — under these carefully defined and delimited circumstances — the Holy Spirit will prevent this. Even if that means keeping the errant pope from saying anything at all. (*Ex cathedra,* I mean. Shooting the breeze with reporters on a plane is an entirely different story. Not ex cathedra. Not infallible. Not even close.)”

. That’s really something. Does the Holy Spirit never do this with others and if yes the HS does, what’s the point?

I do think that once we put our heart and soul into defending an institution, or thinking its the same as Christ, we are in real trouble. The Megas are just as bad at this explaining everything away without a second thought of diving deep into what it means and anyone who dares question is “attacking”. Yet it was fine for the Megas to go after other churches.

So understand that I don’t have any institution to defend. I “attack” the SBC and Mega world all the time. (I use attack because that is what those in allegiance to an institution call “disagreement” or “questioning”) . And am despised for it and paid a price for it. The real danger is when one defends, rationalizes or excuses away anything and everything because one has allegiance to it.

. That’s really something. Does the Holy Spirit never do this with others and if yes the HS does, what’s the point?

Two things:

First: google ‘extraordinary magisterium’. This will lead you to two other links in google concerning magisterium and infallibility.

Second: understand the use of the terms ‘ordinary’ and extraordinary’ and ‘magisterium’ in ecclesial vocabulary.

I am neither defending nor condemning these concepts. We use the terms ordinary and extraordinary also, and it may well be that other liturgical denominations also use those terms, I don’t know for sure.

And the point in application would be, in protestant terms I suppose, that it addresses the issue of who ya gonna believe. Are you going to listen to ever Tom, Dick and Harry theologian/ priest/ popular speaker/ political activist/ popular author/ dominant personality at church and miscellaneous other or are you going to listen to the magisterium which has some built-in protectives. Now one may say that the system is not perfect, and that seems to me to be quite true. But it does work toward establishing what they believe to be true and work toward eliminating what the do not think to be true.

From what you all are saying I take it that the mega pastors in evangelical world take on that position for themselves, and some commenters seem to be advocating that individuals take that position for themselves individually. I am not saying anything about this further other than that this is the point, and we all in one way or another address this issue of who ya gonna believe.

@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
“If the pope wants to promulgate error — under these carefully defined and delimited circumstances — the Holy Spirit will prevent this. Even if that means keeping the errant pope from saying anything at all. (*Ex cathedra,* I mean. Shooting the breeze with reporters on a plane is an entirely different story. Not ex cathedra. Not infallible. Not even close.)”

. That’s really something. Does the Holy Spirit never do this with others and if yes the HS does, what’s the point?

I do think that once we put our heart and soul into defending an institution, or thinking its the same as Christ, we are in real trouble. The Megas are just as bad at this explaining everything away without a second thought of diving deep into what it means and anyone who dares question is “attacking”. Yet it was fine for the Megas to go after other churches.

So understand that I don’t have any institution to defend. I “attack” the SBC and Mega world all the time. (I use attack because that is what those in allegiance to an institution call “disagreement” or “questioning”) . And am despised for it and paid a price for it. The real danger is when one defends, rationalizes or excuses away anything and everything because one has allegiance to it.

Lydia, I’m not trying to convince anyone here about Catholic or papal claims. I’m simply trying to explain what Catholics *actually* believe, as opposed to what people *think* we believe. Per one of Mercy’s comments, she is apparently under the impression that Catholics must believe the pope is infallible every time he opens his mouth and says *anything.* This is flat-out wrong. It is a misconception. I was simply trying to correct this misconception. That’s all. Nothing more.

I do not ask anyone to *agree with* my Church’s teaching. I merely ask that people stop *misrepresenting* it. To that end, I am trying to clarify it. I believe that, if people are going to attack someone else’s beliefs, they should at least have Clue One what they are talking about. Know what I mean? 😉 This is why I try to ‘splain and clarify…so that the bashers will at least have a better idea what they’re bashing. 😀

Obviously it’s very difficult to explain all this stuff within the limitations of a combox. That’s one of the pitfalls of Internet discussion.

One final word: I do think it may be both unfair and uncharitable to impugn someone’s motives in a case like this…much less to presume to read that person’s “heart and soul” and suggest that she’s in “real trouble.” 😉

. That’s really something. Does the Holy Spirit never do this with others and if yes the HS does, what’s the point?

Two things:

First: google ‘extraordinary magisterium’. This will lead you to two other links in google concerning magisterium and infallibility.

Second: understand the use of the terms ‘ordinary’ and extraordinary’ and ‘magisterium’ in ecclesial vocabulary.

I am neither defending nor condemning these concepts. We use the terms ordinary and extraordinary also, and it may well be that other liturgical denominations also use those terms, I don’t know for sure.

And the point in application would be, in protestant terms I suppose, that it addresses the issue of who ya gonna believe. Are you going to listen to ever Tom, Dick and Harry theologian/ priest/ popular speaker/ political activist/ popular author/ dominant personality at church and miscellaneous other or are you going to listen to the magisterium which has some built-in protectives. Now one may say that the system is not perfect, and that seems to me to be quite true. But it does work toward establishing what they believe to be true and work toward eliminating what the do not think to be true.

From what you all are saying I take it that the mega pastors in evangelical world take on that position for themselves, and some commenters seem to be advocating that individuals take that position for themselves individually. I am not saying anything about this further other than that this is the point, and we all in one way or another address this issue of who ya gonna believe.

So do I. A couple of years back (at a Mexican eatery with Mrs. Muff) I got into it with a Calvary Chapel dude over the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

The palaver got nowhere fast, and finally, when I stuck up for myself and asserted that I haven’t done anything to deserve eternal torture by fire, his chagrin got the better of him and he asked me if I knew where I’ll spend eternity.“No I don’t, and neither do you”, was my reply.

Live a good life.
If there are gods and they are just, they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by.
If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them.
If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.
— Marcus Aurelius, philosopher and writer (121-180 A.D.) —

“For the record, Catholics believe that papal infallibility applies to the office, not the man. As Karl Keating says, it is a negative protection, not a positive one. When the pope teaches *ex cathedra* re faith and morals, formally and officially, the Holy Spirit keeps him from teaching error — for the sake of the faithful. Moreover, what he teaches *ex cathedra* must be fully consonant with Scripture and Sacred Tradition. He cannot make things up. He is bound by 2000 years of Sacred Tradition.”

And it’s perfectly okay that it doesn’t make sense to me. I am a nobody just discussing this on a Blog.

@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
I think the problem has been that you are so over early defensive when Catholicism is brought up here it sends the opposite message of your intent? I just don’t think any group is off limits.

One final word: I do think it may be both unfair and uncharitable to impugn someone’s motives in a case like this…much less to presume to read that person’s “heart and soul” and suggest that she’s in “real trouble.”

I am confused where I said this. Well I don’t think we should make judgments on salvation we are certainly told to judge fruit. 🙂

I do think that once we put our heart and soul into defending an institution, or thinking its the same as Christ, we are in real trouble. The Megas are just as bad at this explaining everything away without a second thought of diving deep into what it means and anyone who dares question is “attacking”. Yet it was fine for the Megas to go after other churches.

So understand that I don’t have any institution to defend. I “attack” the SBC and Mega world all the time. (I use attack because that is what those in allegiance to an institution call “disagreement” or “questioning”) . And am despised for it and paid a price for it. The real danger is when one defends, rationalizes or excuses away anything and everything because one has allegiance to it.

I can relate to this, Lydia. Been on the receiving end too many times.

@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
I think the problem has been that you are so over early defensive when Catholicism is brought up here it sends the opposite message of your intent? I just don’t think any group is off limits.

No group is off limits. But again, it helps if you know what a particular group actually believes. If you attack beliefs that the group does NOT actually *hold,* then you are attacking a strawman.

Don’t you think it is perfectly legitimate for someone to set the record straight when her beliefs are being misrepresented — when falsehoods are being circulated? That is all I am doing: setting the record straight. And apparently not everyone here has received the “impression” you have WRT my motives, insecurities, or whatever.

For the record, I have candidly discussed problems within my Church on more than one occasion. I have mentioned cult-like groups like Regnum Christi. I have discussed my goddaughter’s horrible experiences with her spiritually abusive, predominantly Catholic “charismatic covenant community.” I have cited the Catholic sex abuse scandal. I have certainly never implied that Catholics can do no wrong. Au contraire. I have explicitly said that we are a mess, just like everyone else.

So, again, implications that I am actuated by some sort of emotional “problem” are neither fair nor accurate.

It’s interesting that a lot of the planted churches are in wealthy sunbelt areas with plenty of existing churches. I don’t see them building churches in poor areas where ppl really need help.

Where I live in FL There are many wonderful small and mid-sized denominational churches in danger of closing bc the membership is literally dying off & the churches are not in the suburbs where the growth is.

Why don’t some of these people offer to help & revitalize an existing church rather than build an expensive new building and continue a facilities, fancy preaching and rock music arms race?

“Per one of Mercy’s comments, she is apparently under the impression that Catholics must believe the pope is infallible every time he opens his mouth and says *anything.*”

You do know that Mercy never said that, don’t you? You keep making false claims and accusing folks of gaslighting. What you are doing is a prime example of what this site was created to expose.

I can find you the quote in question. I am paraphrasing, but I believe I have captured the meaning accurately.

I find the rest of your comment deeply offensive. If you believe this, then why not take it up with the Deebs? So far you are the only person who has made the claim that I am doing “what this site was created to expose.” I don’t even know how to respond to such nonsense.

@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
“I find the rest of your comment deeply offensive. If you believe this, then why not take it up with the Deebs? So far you are the only person who has made the claim that I am doing “what this site was created to expose.” I don’t even know how to respond to such nonsense.”

What I find deeply offensive is you claiming to only be engaging in ‘cordial disagreement’ when you are misrepresenting what members have said and falsely accusing them of gaslighting. You seek to ridicule and undermine your chosen targets.

@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
“I find the rest of your comment deeply offensive. If you believe this, then why not take it up with the Deebs? So far you are the only person who has made the claim that I am doing “what this site was created to expose.” I don’t even know how to respond to such nonsense.”

What I find deeply offensive is you claiming to only be engaging in ‘cordial disagreement’ when you are misrepresenting what members have said and falsely accusing them of gaslighting. You seek to ridicule and undermine your chosen targets.

I have misrepresented nothing. And I call it gaslighting because that’s exactly what it is.

You and several others here have made truly insulting ad hominem statements — directed at me personally, not at the substance of my arguments. And then you have the nerve to accuse me of seeking to “undermine” my “targets.” Mama Mia. Pot, please meet kettle.

If you don’t want to engage me, there is a simple solution. Ignore me. I will be glad to return the courtesy. I don’t know you from Adam, and, frankly, after this exchange, I don’t want to.

If you think I don’t belong here, take it up with the Deebs. If you don’t want to do so, at least ignore me. Lay off the accusations and personal insults. Thank you.

So, again, implications that I am actuated by some sort of emotional “problem” are neither fair nor accurate.

I don’t think Lydia implied that you have an emotional problem.

Lydia’s quote: I think the problem has been that you are so over early defensive when Catholicism is brought up here it sends the opposite message of your intent?

I think her statement is self explanatory. The “problem” is how you are being perceived.

Perceived by whom? By Muff? By HUG? By KenF? By the Deebs?

Or by a very small, vocal coterie of people who harbor very predictable anti-Catholic sentiments?

This is a common ploy among Internet Bullies: “We all see you this way! This is how you are being perceived.” Nonsense. A few people apparently “perceive” me this way. Others most emphatically do not. Several have come to my defense. Do their perceptions count? Or do you presume to claim that you speak for everyone on this forum?

And BTW, how do you suppose some other people hereabouts perceive you? Do you really want to know? That Internet Bully Mind Game works both ways.

Perceived by whom? By Muff? By HUG? By KenF? By the Deebs?
Or by a very small, vocal coterie of people who harbor very predictable anti-Catholic sentiments?
This is a common ploy among Internet Bullies: “We all see you this way! This is how you are being perceived.” Nonsense. A few people apparently “perceive” me this way. Others most emphatically do not. Several have come to my defense. Do their perceptions count? Or do you presume to claim that you speak for everyone on this forum?
And BTW, how do you suppose some other people hereabouts perceive you? Do you really want to know? That Internet Bully Mind Game works both ways.

Gee, I didn’t say anything nasty and you play the “anti-Catholic” card. SHEESH!!!

I’m sorry you feel so victimized, it must be hard to be an oppressed minority.

And BTW, I do not give a rip what others in this forum think of me. I write here at the pleasure of the Deebs. If they believe I have crossed a line, they can ban me or put me in slow moderation.

Why don’t some of these people offer to help & revitalize an existing church

In the SBC, they call them “Re-Plants” when a young Calvinist and his band of new reformers takeover an existing non-Calvinist church. Through stealth and deception, they target these churches to plant reformed theology. They have no interest in helping and revitalizing a struggling church and often split it rather than build it.

@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
I never meant to offend you by disagreeing with you. At this point, I think any more explanation would not be unprofitable. I hold nothing against you at all and I hope you feel the same. God bless!

Perceived by whom? By Muff? By HUG? By KenF? By the Deebs?
Or by a very small, vocal coterie of people who harbor very predictable anti-Catholic sentiments?
This is a common ploy among Internet Bullies: “We all see you this way! This is how you are being perceived.” Nonsense. A few people apparently “perceive” me this way. Others most emphatically do not. Several have come to my defense. Do their perceptions count? Or do you presume to claim that you speak for everyone on this forum?
And BTW, how do you suppose some other people hereabouts perceive you? Do you really want to know? That Internet Bully Mind Game works both ways.

Gee, I didn’t say anything nasty and you play the “anti-Catholic” card. SHEESH!!!

I’m sorry you feel so victimized, it must be hard to be an oppressed minority.

And BTW, I do not give a rip what others in this forum think of me. I write here at the pleasure of the Deebs. If they believe I have crossed a line, they can ban me or put me in slow moderation.

Please go bother someone else. Please. I don’t know you from Adam. I don’t *want* to know you from Adam. I am not lobbing insult spitballs at you. Or at anyone else. You and a VERY few other people are the ones who are making it personal. Not moi.

Kindly find someone else to demonstrate your superior Relationship With Jesus and Christian Charity toward. I’ve had about enough. Goodbye and best wishes.

@ Max:
I had never thought about the dangers of this approach. If this was done in a non conquest-oriented way that was about fitting in and supporting, I could get behind it. As long as the church isn’t authoritarian, I could fit into a wide range of churches, especially since I’m not counting on the church as the sorce of salvation and perfect Gospelly ™ doctrine.

The words “for our sake” have been construed through allusion by some as an affirmation of PSA.

That’s very interesting. I have read quite a lot about PSA and I don’t recall anyone making that argument. But I could see how one could. The way I understand it is he had to die in order to enter into the worst of humanity in order to rescue it. This is a pretty decent explanation of what he did for our sake: https://www.perichoresis.org/on-the-death-of-our-blessed-lord-jesus-christ-2/.

@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
I never meant to offend you by disagreeing with you. At this point, I think any more explanation would not be unprofitable. I hold nothing against you at all and I hope you feel the same. God bless!

I feel the same way toward you, Lydia! Please forgive me all my offenses. And thank you so much!!! You have no idea how healing your words are. God bless you, too!

I hope you don’t leave because you bring a lot to this site. I’m having a hard time understanding how conversations about Roman Catholicism tend to go off the rails so often here. Of all sites, TWW should be a place where respectful disagreement can flourish. But for some reason this topic seems cursed.

I do think at times you come across as overly sensitive to criticism of Roman Catholicism, and your replies can come across as more pointed than I think you mean them. But I’ve also seen quite a lot of unfair comments directed to Roman Catholicism in general, and to you in particular. I suspect that if all parties involved could discuss this over some drinks it would be a very different conversation. Or maybe everyone needs to eat a Snickers bar or something. Or take a few deep breaths before typing a reply.

Your factual descriptions of official Roman Catholic beliefs seem sound and are consistent with the little I’ve learned of them. You provide a lot of solid input that helps to correct Protestant assumptions and beliefs that are not always grounded in fact. And you also provide a lot of very good historical background. Even if we Protestants don’t like what history reveals, we need exposure to it.

I am not pro-Catholic or anti-Catholic. I have Catholic friends and family members, and I’ve had some great conversations with very learned Catholics. There are some things about Roman Catholic theology that bother me enough that I don’t think I could become Roman Catholic, but not to the point that I would ever claim that Roman Catholics are not Christians. If my only choices were Roman Catholicism or Calvinism, I would choose the former without hesitation because, for whatever baggage I personally believe it brings, it also brings a wealth of very solid and ancient theology.

I hope you don’t leave because you bring a lot to this site. I’m having a hard time understanding how conversations about Roman Catholicism tend to go off the rails so often here. Of all sites, TWW should be a place where respectful disagreement can flourish. But for some reason this topic seems cursed.

I do think at times you come across as overly sensitive to criticism of Roman Catholicism, and your replies can come across as more pointed than I think you mean them. But I’ve also seen quite a lot of unfair comments directed to Roman Catholicism in general, and to you in particular. I suspect that if all parties involved could discuss this over some drinks it would be a very different conversation. Or maybe everyone needs to eat a Snickers bar or something. Or take a few deep breaths before typing a reply.

Your factual descriptions of official Roman Catholic beliefs seem sound and are consistent with the little I’ve learned of them. You provide a lot of solid input that helps to correct Protestant assumptions and beliefs that are not always grounded in fact. And you also provide a lot of very good historical background. Even if we Protestants don’t like what history reveals, we need exposure to it.

I am not pro-Catholic or anti-Catholic. I have Catholic friends and family members, and I’ve had some great conversations with very learned Catholics. There are some things about Roman Catholic theology that bother me enough that I don’t think I could become Roman Catholic, but not to the point that I would ever claim that Roman Catholics are not Christians. If my only choices were Roman Catholicism or Calvinism, I would choose the former without hesitation because, for whatever baggage I personally believe it brings, it also brings a wealth of very solid and ancient theology.

I hope this helps.

Yes, it helps immensely. You are correct — I am often too pointed, and I do need to count to ten.

I love this verse from Burns’s “To a Louse,” although I hesitate to quote it, because everyone always thinks it applies to everyone except him/herself IYKWIM:

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An’ foolish notion:
What airs in dress an’ gait wad lea’e us,
An’ ev’n devotion!

Attention

We are undergoing some remodeling. If things look very odd, just come back in a few minutes and they will likely be better. GBTC Really. 🙂

NOTE: Any emails sent to this site will not be read until tomorrow as we transition our email systems. (Tuesday November 06, 2018)

Over the next week or so we’ll be shoring up some deferred maintenance. So things will be messy. Just walk around the scaffolding and tarps laid out on the floors. And please don’t touch the walls. They may have wet paint on them.